Press release from the “Housing For All” campaign:
The Housing for All and Downtown Vitality campaign has started. The City of Eureka has provided the final paperwork that allows the campaign to begin collecting signatures for the ballot initiative. Approximately 1,600 valid voter signatures are needed to place the measure on the ballot.
The Housing for All ballot initiative is a comprehensive update to the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan. It includes rezoning 8.5 acres of the former Jacobs Middle School property for housing and provisions to preserve parking on public lots downtown where housing has been proposed. If passed by the voters, the Housing for All Initiative will enable Eureka to provide several hundred badly needed affordable housing units for all income levels.
“The initiative has changed slightly from the original one we submitted to the City on July 14,” explained Mike Munson, initiative co-signer. “The City recently awarded the contract for developing the 5th and D parking lots and the 6th and L lot to the Wiyot Tribe. Our revised initiative provides that those two lots will be exempt from the ballot measure as long as the Wiyot Tribe owns them. We support their efforts in building affordable housing in an environmentally friendly manner while protecting their heritage and keeping the work local.”
According to Munson, the Housing for All and Downtown Vitality campaign focuses on housing. He said that while the downtown parking lots are part of the initiative, the goal is to make a bad housing element plan better and bring that plan to the voters.
“There is much misinformation about the initiative we would like to correct,” said Michelle Costantine, initiative co-signer. “This is genuinely about housing for all and does not prevent the development of the downtown parking lots.” The downtown lots would remain sites for affordable housing to attract families downtown. Still, the initiative requires parking to be provided to the residents and preserve the 640 spaces that will be lost.
According to Costantine and Munson, the use of the former Jacobs Middle School site will provide the following:
· Stable family housing,
· Increase property values in the area,
· Badly needed funds for the City Schools, and
· Make the neighborhood safer.
“The City Schools are under capacity, and plenty of classrooms are available for the growth this housing will bring,” added Munson. “More housing means more students, and that’s a good thing.”
Below you will find a lengthy press release about the opening of a new Mountain Mike’s Pizza in McKinleyville. LoCO has had Mountain Mike’s Pizza. It’s fine. Fast, in our experience. And now, if you live in McKinleyville, you, too, can also conveniently acquire it.
If you’d like to read more words about the Mountain Mike’s and its various features — like, say, its “whopping 15 big-screen televisions” — read on:
Mountain Mike’s Pizza, a leading family-style pizza chain for over 45 years, known for its legendary crispy, curly pepperonis, Mountain-sized pizzas, and dough made fresh daily, is excited to announce that its new McKinleyville restaurant is now open for business. The new restaurant is owned and operated by brothers and multi-unit franchisees Aamir and Bashir Khan of Khan Venture Group, whose Mountain Mike’s franchise portfolio now expands to four restaurants, complementing existing Northern California locations in Eureka, Rohnert Park and Fortuna, which opened earlier this year. Whether dining in the restaurant, carrying out or having it delivered directly to their door, the new Mountain Mike’s Pizza is the ideal destination for McKinleyville locals and visitors alike to enjoy the brand’s signature experience of “Pizza the Way it Oughta Be!®
“We’re extremely eager to welcome the McKinleyville community to our new Mountain Mike’s Pizza restaurant as we strive to make this location a destination for the community to gather for all of life’s joyous moments, memorable celebrations and other meaningful occasions for many years to come,” said Aamir Khan. “Mountain Mike’s Pizza serves menu items that are second-to-none when it comes to quality and taste, and we have watched as more communities continue to fall in love with Mountain Mike’s, which is why we are delighted to help grow the brand along the Northern California Coast.”
The spacious 4,600 square-foot Mountain Mike’s Pizza in McKinleyville features the same welcoming, family-friendly atmosphere the brand is known for, and it’s bound to be a go-to destination for sports fans. Featuring a whopping 15 big-screen televisions, the McKinleyville restaurant is the perfect venue no matter which team guests want to root for. The new location also includes an all-you-can-eat pizza and salad lunch buffet, wine, domestic beer and local craft beer on tap, a 1,000-square-foot kids’ arcade, complimentary Wi-Fi and a private party room. Clearly, there’s something for everyone at Mountain Mike’s in McKinleyville, making it an ideal spot for guests of all ages, team parties, family get-togethers, office gatherings and group fundraising events alike.
One bite into a cheesy slice of pizza from Mountain Mike’s takes you back to your childhood, when pizzas were hand-made and with the freshest and finest ingredients. From its legendary crispy, curly pepperoni, 100% whole milk mozzarella cheese and a variety of fan-favorite specialty pizzas, Mountain Mike’s has something to satisfy every taste. Whether it’s dine-in, catering, carryout or its own in-house delivery, guests can always count on Mountain Mike’s to ensure quality, freshness, flavor and value. Orders may be placed online, through the Mountain Mike’s Pizza App, or through any of the brand’s third-party delivery partners.
The new McKinleyville Mountain Mike’s is located at 1500 Anna Sparks Way and can be reached by telephone at (707) 203-8500. The restaurant is open daily from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. For additional information about Mountain Mike’s Pizza, visit www.mountainmikespizza.com. For additional information about the new McKinleyville location, go here or find them on Google and Yelp.
Guard towers outside of Kern Valley State Prison on Nov. 15, 2022. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local
Renee Espinoza thought her first strip search at the hands of a California correctional officer guard would be her last. It happened during a visit to Centinela State Prison to see her incarcerated husband.
A few months later it happened again. And then again.
“It was the same process each time. I sign a paper saying it’s ok to search me, they escort me to the same locker room,” Renee said.
Before each search, she filled out the so-called Form 888, a requirement for each visitor who consents to an unclothed search. The first search felt procedural and normal, she recalled. On the second search, she noticed the female officers in the room had mirrors and used a flashlight.
On the third search, the correctional officer was more aggressive. “She was asking me to spread my genitals wider. And I’m just like, ‘there’s nothing in there!’ How much wider do you need me to open? How much lower do you need me to bend? What else do you need me to do?”
Espinoza shared her story last week with other families of state prisoners who are trying to make sense of a proposed change in search policy at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
The department, which is facing pressure to stem the flow of drugs and cell phones into prisons, plans to make procedural changes that officials said would be minimal and meant to provide more clarity and consistency about the rights for those being searched.
“The only change these regulations implement is in regard to proposed changes to (the state prison system’s) Form 888, which works to include clarity and consistency with existing language describing the search process and the rights of those being searched. The search process itself will remain unchanged,” wrote Alia Cruz, a spokesperson for the corrections agency, in an email.
But one of the proposed changes in the regulation includes language that suggests correctional officers could have more discretion to perform a strip search. That change would lower the threshold for an officer to request a search from “probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion.”
“All this does is expand the scope of discretion to make it easier to justify … I suspect they are already strip searching anyone they want.” — Sharon Dolovich, law professor and director of the UCLA Prison Law and Policy Program
Advocates are worried it could lead to unnecessarily invasive interactions between prisoners’ loved ones and correctional officers.
“People who run the visits already have a lot of discretion,” said Sharon Dolovich, a law professor who directs the UCLA Prison Law and Policy Program. “All this does is expand the scope of discretion to make it easier to justify … I suspect they are already strip searching anyone they want.”
Attorney Eric Sapp of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, an Oakland-based organization, met with families last week ahead of a scheduled public comment hearing on the regulation. He called the proposed change unlawful, inconsistent with other regulations, and said it was “concerning” that the department doesn’t explicitly say whether touching is allowed during unclothed searches.
“We do think it’s unreasonable that they want to change and harmonize those regulations by lowering ‘probable cause’ to ‘reasonable suspicion’ rather than doing the exact opposite,” he said, suggesting that the standard should remain at probable cause.
Cruz, the department’s spokesperson, said the proposed regulation is not intended to change the threshold for searches. She said the standards for strip and cavity searches would remain “unchanged” and would continue to be used only after less invasive means.
“Unclothed searches are completely voluntary unless a search warrant is presented. Unclothed searches are used very sparingly, and only when all other contraband interdiction efforts have been exhausted,” said Cruz. “Contraband interdiction efforts to be used before an unclothed search is proposed includes walk-through metal detectors and hand-held metal detectors.”
Declining a search has a consequence for prison visitors. It means they would not get to meet their incarcerated loved ones, which in some cases could waste an hours-long drive to an institution.
Why is the prison search policy coming up now?
California’s corrections agency put forward the proposed policy six months after an Office of Inspector General audit called attention to the flow of contraband into prisons, including during the pandemic when visitor restrictions were in place.
The report found the Department of Corrections had weak contraband prevention efforts in place and ultimately “allowed” the problem to continue. The inspector general urged the department to strengthen oversight of who and what comes into prisons to keep out drugs, including by searching staff more frequently and making more use of narcotic-detecting canines.
California state prisons recorded 1,274 overdoses between March 2019 and February 2020. In the following 12 months — after pandemic restrictions took effect — overdoses declined to 796, according to California Correctional Health Care Services.
Although the number of overdoses went down, the cases revealed that drugs found their way into prisons even when families couldn’t visit. Some avenues included staff, contractors, official visitors and mail.
Between 2021 and 2022, 64 visitors were arrested across all state prisons for attempting to bring in contraband. In the same year, six prison employees and 46 non-visitors were also arrested, according to the department’s Office of Research. The number of visitors arrested are down from 286 in 2018 and 186 in 2019.
Asked to comment on the proposed search changes, Shaun Spillane, a spokesperson for the Inspector General’s office, said there is value in the decision to update policies.
“Although drugs still made it into prisons while visitation was suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important that the department have an effective search process for people who visit prisons,” Spillane said.
California prison visits as a civil right
The request to update search policies comes in the midst of the Newsom administration’s campaign to make prisons friendlier to families. He signed a law last month that allows prisoners to be housed in facilities closer to where their children under 18 live.
The Newsom administration in 2021 added a third day of weekly visitation at all institutions to make family visits more accessible.
But families say that with intimidating visitor policies in place, they will feel less inclined to visit. Others say they would refuse a search in protest, even if it means losing their visit.
“Close connections to loved ones on the outside is the single biggest predictor of success for re-entry, so why wouldn’t the CDCR try to enhance the experience and enhance the ability for people to visit rather than increasingly burden it?” Dolovich, the professor from UCLA, said.
Angel Rice, the wife of a prisoner and advocate at Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration, said that after COVID-19, the department started giving families more freedom during the holidays.
Now, children and mothers are allowed to make Christmas ornaments and picture frames and decorate gingerbread houses.
“That is a small part of them doing something in a positive manner to make us feel like it’s family,” Rice said. “This is the Department of Rehabilitation. And these little events matter. They make a difference as far as preparing them to come home.”
“Close connections to loved ones on the outside is the biggest predictor of success for re-entry, so why wouldn’t the CDCR try to enhance the experience rather than increasingly burden it?” — Sharon Dolovich, law professor and director of the UCLA Prison Law and Policy Program
The Legislature also has advanced a few bills this year to make family ties with prisoners more accessible.
One, sponsored by Assemblymember Miguel Santiago of Los Angeles, would make visitation a civil right for prisoners and restrict the Department of Corrections’ power to deny a person from visiting. Newsom vetoed a version of this bill in 2021, on the basis that he thought the legislation could lead to costly litigation from individuals denied visitation for what may be valid security concerns.
On Wednesday, the department is scheduled to hold a public comment hearing about the new search regulations. Advocates have already proposed alternatives to the visitor policy, including raising the standard for an officer to request strip search, or using non-intrusive technologies instead.
“These proposed changes in particular are unnecessary and dangerous, creating grave potential for abuse and causing undue burdens on visitors,” Sapp wrote in a letter to the department days before the public comment period ends. “We urge that significant changes be made before any regulations in this area are adopted.”
If approved, the department will put in a request for good cause, which would enact the policy immediately.
###
CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.
This is a Pacific razor clam. His cousins are waiting for you to eat them. James St. John, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
From the California Department of Fish and Wildlife:
The Director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has re-opened the recreational razor clam fishery in Humboldt County following a recommendation from state health agencies that consumption of razor clams in the area no longer poses a significant threat for domoic acid exposure.
In April 2023, the razor clam fishery was closed in Humboldt County due to risk of domoic acid exposure. During the closure, state health agencies continued to assess domoic acid levels which consistently exceeded the federal action level for domoic acid of ≥ 20 parts per million (ppm). However, clams collected from Clam Beach, Humboldt County in July 2023 all had domoic acid concentrations lower than this action level.
Domoic acid is a naturally occurring toxin produced by certain types of plankton that can be harmful or even fatal to humans. Domoic acid poisoning in humans may occur within minutes to hours after consumption of affected seafood and can result in signs and symptoms ranging from vomiting and diarrhea to permanent loss of short-term memory (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning), coma, or death. There is no way to prepare clams that will remove the toxin. Cooking and freezing have no effect.
CDFW reminds clammers that the daily bag limit for razor clams is 20 and the first 20 clams dug must be retained regardless of size or condition. Each person is required to keep a separate container and is not allowed to commingle their clams with another person’s when digging and transporting clams to shore.
For more information, please refer to Section 29.20 Clams General and Section 29.45 for specific razor clam regulations.
For more information on any fishery closure information or health advisories, please visit CDFW’s Ocean Health Advisories website.
To get the latest information on current fishing season closures related to domoic acid, call CDFW’s Domoic Acid Fishery Closure Information Line at (831) 649-2883.
For the latest consumption warnings, call the California Department of Public Health’s Biotoxin information Line at (510) 412-4643 or toll-free at (800) 553-4133.
A couple of weeks ago, CBS’s venerable news magazine “60 Minutes” paid a visit to the northern English port town of Grimsby, which services the largest offshore wind farm in the world. This morning the segment was posted to YouTube.
The report, by correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi, features lots of locals in the town, which has fallen on hard times since the decline of its fishing industry, as well as a representative of Ørsted, the Danish company that runs the wind farm operation. Some of the locals grumble that their power bills have not gone down as promised — this is due, at least in part, to the global energy shock that followed the war in Ukraine — but others, including a young woman who has found her career servicing the gigantic offshore devices, revel in the new industry.
It’s pretty easy to see the parallels between the situation in Grimsby and our own, here in the first phases of our own offshore wind development, and especially so in the early flyover shots of the town. Squint a little bit and damned if the town Grimsby doesn’t bear a familiar resemblance to Eureka.
Did you like those big explosions heard all around Humboldt Bay last night at around 10 p.m.? Quickened the pulse, right?
This morning comes word that these booms were due to an artillery shell that someone found in their garden, as one does, earlier in the evening on the 3300 block of H Street in Eureka.
The Eureka Police Department’s Brittany Powell tells us that her agency closed the roads around the location for a time, then eventually called in the Sheriff’s Office’s bomb squad, which transported the thing to the Samoa peninsula and blew it up.
A key takeaway from two hard-hitting sets of reports released late last month is that the 23-campus system collects insufficient data.
In one of the reports, the California State Auditor wrote that Cal State lacks “meaningful analysis” to “identify and respond to concerning trends.” The auditor’s report, which was requested by state lawmakers, found that the data on the number of unwanted sexual conduct reports — such as sexual harassment, misconduct, stalking, assault and violence — filed against employees is “unreliable.”
Cozen O’Connor, a law firm the Cal State Chancellor’s Office hired last year to publish more than two dozen reports, wrote that “the current process for collecting data does not result in consistent, reliable data across the system.”
The two sets of reports revealed a huge discrepancy in how many Cal State employees at the 23 campuses were accused of some kind of improper sexual conduct — 1,246 across five years according to the audit and 452 in four academic years according to Cozen.
The reasons for the discrepancy range from imprecise data collection to the addition of new categories of unwanted sexual conduct in the most recent year. Both sets of reports also state campuses don’t use the same software to track improper sexual conduct and don’t log cases the same way.
Buying better software and training more staff to track these reports of unwanted conduct are some of the reasons Cal State estimates it’ll spend $25 million in 2024-25 and unknown sums going forward to adopt all the reports’ recommendations.
“We agree with and will implement the recommendations provided in the audit report, as well as those identified in the Cozen assessment,” wrote Jolene Koester, Cal State’s interim chancellor, to the state auditor.
The importance of good data
Collecting good data is a common watchword of victims’ advocates. Both sets of reports make clear why students and staff will be safer if campuses have a more accurate count of sexual harassment, misconduct, violence, stalking and assault cases.
Complaints against employees can lead to investigations, which may result in additional training, a reprimand or disciplinary action all the way to dismissal for those found to have violated Cal State policy.
But the campuses lack “a sufficient understanding of the volume” of sexual and gender-based harassment and violence, the Cozen systemwide report said. Nor can campuses spot trends in specific locations or academic programs, or even whether a single individual is the source of multiple complaints, the Cozen and audit reports noted. Cozen added that “because the CSU is not tracking data across campuses, an employee who engages in conduct of concern at one CSU university can often seek employment at another CSU without the new university being aware of the misconduct.”
Campuses lack “a sufficient understanding of the volume” of sexual and gender-based harassment and violence. — Cozen O’Connor’s report
In multiple cases, the auditor’s report flagged issues with campuses that determined employees didn’t violate Cal State policy on unwanted sexual conduct. The auditor’s office wrote that it found “deficiencies that caused us to question the investigative determination about sexual harassment.”
Across U.S. higher education, sexual harassment and assault are rampant. According to a 2019 survey of 33 universities, including three in California, more than 40% of all students reported experiencing a form of sexual harassment since entering college, such as “inappropriate or offensive comments” about their bodies or sexual activities. A quarter of undergraduate women said they were victims of “nonconsensual sexual contact by physical force.”
Competing numbers and data problems
There are multiple reasons why the two sets of numbers of how many employees were accused of unwanted sexual conduct — 1,246 and 452 — are so different.
The first thing to know is that, according to Cozen and the state auditor, neither of their numbers is reliable. But they’re unreliable for different and overlapping reasons, ranging from the types of unwanted sexual conduct Cal State counted to which Cal State documents Cozen and the auditor relied on to finalize their tallies.
One major reason the auditor’s count of 1,246 reports filed against employees is much higher than Cozen’s is because it included more types of unwanted sexual conduct over a longer period of time — 2018 to 2022.
Cozen based its numbers on the official reports campuses submitted to the Cal State’s Chancellor’s Office between 2018-19 and 2021-22. Campuses included the number of reports filed against employees that were limited to several types of unwanted sexual conduct — assault, stalking, misconduct and dating or domestic violence — for the first three academic years in the data set.
Then, in 2021-22, the chancellor’s office began asking campuses for instances of reports against employees — and students — that included two more categories: “sexual exploitation” — a term that refers to sexual coercion, prostitution or recording sexual activity without consent — and a narrower definition of sexual harassment. That narrower definition includes “unwelcome verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature” and offering favors in exchange for sexual acts.
The Cozen reports published the same numbers that campuses sent to the chancellor’s office.But campuses also maintained physical and digital files on many other types of reports filed against employees that weren’t reflected in the tallies sent to the chancellor’s office — and by extension — weren’t reflected in Cozen’s figures.
The auditor’s office took a different approach. It reviewed all those physical and digital files and identified cases that alleged sexual assault, stalking, violence, exploitation, sexual harassment, and other unwelcome sexual conduct. It did this for five calendar years.
That’s how the auditor got to a much higher count than the Cozen reports — it just did the additional work of reviewing the raw data.
But even the auditor’s review of digital and physical files didn’t paint the full picture. In some cases, multiple complaints filed against an employee were counted as a single report. Other times, multiple complaints against a single employee were counted as multiple reports. Some campuses had incomplete case files, which may have affected the precision of the auditor’s counts.
“Because of these inconsistencies, we found the data to be unreliable for our purposes,” the auditor wrote.
Importantly, the Cozen and auditor reports had different goals. For example, lawmakers specifically asked the auditor to count how many employees were accused of unwanted sexual conduct. By design, the Cozen reports focused on how Cal State addresses discrimination, harassment, and retaliation according to its own policies and federal rules, wrote the lawyers who shepherded the project, Leslie Gomez and Gina Maisto Smith, in a detailed email response to CalMatters. Cozen produced roughly 1,600 pages of analysis and recommendations for all 23 campuses and the system in the reports, “an arduous task,” Gomez and Smith wrote.
“I think it obviously shows the need for the school to have been collecting this data all along.” — Shiwali Patel, Director of Justice for Student Survivors and Senior Counsel at the Washington D.C.-based National Women’s Law Center
The latest data from the Cal State campuses also shows how the number of reports against employees can jump when the system tracks more unwanted sexual conduct. Since 2021-22 was the first year that the chancellor’s office sought data from campuses about sexual harassment and exploitation — not just violence, stalking and assault — the number increased in Cozen’s set of reports.
That year there were 255 reports against employees, according to a CalMatters review of Cozen data for all 23 campuses. The year before, Cozen counted 56 reports and about 70 each in 2018-19 and 2019-20.
Cozen’s much higher count for 2021-22 is also similar to the auditor’s counts for the 2021 and 2022 calendar years — 193 and 285 reports alleging unwanted sexual conduct by employees, respectively.
“I think it obviously shows the need for the school to have been collecting this data all along,” said Shiwali Patel, who leads policy and litigation on gender-based harassment at the Washington D.C.-based National Women’s Law Center.
More reports of mistreatment likely
The Biden administration is expected to finalize changes to the federal law governing not just unwanted sexual conduct, but also gender-based discrimination. The predicted changes will expand the allegations colleges must respond to — which may increase the number of reports schools will eventually publish.
Gomez and Smith said that Cal State should compile annual reports that include all those data points.
The Biden rules will be the fifth major change since 2011 to federal rules about how colleges should handle violence and discrimination complaints on their campuses. The shifting rules amount to a legalistic whiplash for higher education that is also compounded by evolving state rules, including in California.
The Cozen report notes this constant change is taxing on schools, which must quickly adapt and hire or train more staff knowledgeable in the intricacies of discrimination and harassment prevention policies and enforcement.
In an official statement, Cal State said its count of complaints against employees included violence and assault — and not harassment or exploitation — because federal guidance in 2011 and 2013 emphasized those types of unwanted sexual conduct and not others.
Adding harassment and exploitation to the data collection in 2021-22 “was important to better understanding the frequency and nature of sexual harassment reports, and due to sexual exploitation being newly added to the CSU Nondiscrimination Policy,” wrote Amy Bentley-Smith, spokesperson for the Cal State Chancellor’s Office, in an email to CalMatters.
She provided other possible reasons for an increase in reports that year. One is that students and staff returned to campus as the pandemic subsided. Another is the set of high-profile cases of unwanted sexual conduct at Cal State that prompted more people to come forward with their own complaints.
If Cozen’s “recommendations are implemented with fidelity, we expect that campuses will have more effective practices and systems, and therefore, more reliable data,” wrote the Cozen lawyers to CalMatters.
But better data can only capture what’s reported.
“When we see more numbers reported, that’s actually a good sign” because it shows more “victims feel comfortable coming forward.” — Shiwali Patel, Director of Justice for Student Survivor at the Washington D.C.-based National Women’s Law Center
At colleges and universities, “most incidents are not reported,” Patel said. And too often she hears of schools refusing to investigate a student’s or employee’s unwanted sexual conduct complaint. Or campuses might punish alleged victims because they violated school policy, such as drinking, disregarding the harassment or assault complaint.
A culture of intimidation may also prevent victims from filing complaints, especially if the alleged suspect holds considerable sway in a niche academic discipline. That’s according to Maha Ibrahim, a senior attorney who represents people alleging harassment, assault and gender-based discrimination at California-based Equal Opportunity Advocates.
If a student or employee is being abused by someone “who has power in that small space,” then the student or employee can lose their ability to complete their research, Ibrahim said. “We see that kind of reticence and under-reporting a lot.”
Paradoxically, Patel thinks “when we see more numbers reported, that’s actually a good sign,” because it shows more “victims feel comfortable coming forward.” It also means the school may take the steps to educate or discipline someone who’s harming students or staff, she added.
Both the Cozen and audit reports proposed dozens of recommendations, including better data collection. The auditor wrote that Cal State’s central office should collect and analyze unwanted sexual conduct reports from all campuses no later than July 2024. The point is to “identify any concerning patterns or trends, such as those involving repeat subjects, particular academic departments, or specific student or employee populations,” the auditor wrote.
But other data overhauls may take more time. The audit said Cal State should require every campus to use the same software to track unwanted sexual conduct and ensure all campuses are logging the cases the same way. The auditor states that should be done by July 2026.
###
CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.
_3.jpg){kind=link}