Despite his full confession to being a gang hitman hired to kill a McKinleyville man, Isreal Soria Jr. testified yesterday that his only intention was to steal Dylan Eubanks’s guns and marijuana.

Under questioning by defense attorney Christina DiEdoardo and cross-examination by Deputy District Attorney Trent Timm, Soria offered a three-word explanation for why he confessed: “I was high.”

Soria.

On June 24, 2021, Soria was packing a semi-automatic pistol with an extended, illegal magazine loaded with 32 bullets. He fired 11 rounds through a window of Eubanks’s home, striking Eubanks once in the arm. He then fled and was arrested in a neighbor’s back yard.

Soria told the arresting officer he had been hired by a Norteño gang member who believed Eubanks stole from him. He received a down payment of $7,500, with $25,000 due if he killed Eubanks.

That day, Soria says, he consumed a half-bottle of Johnny Walker whiskey, numerous shots of Don Julio 1942 tequila and some cognac. He also smoked concentrated marijuana and took his usual six to eight Xanax. This explains why he made a false confession, he says, but the truth is he only wanted “to rip (Eubanks) off.”

Eubanks had posted on Snapchat, bragging about his guns and money. More than 200 pounds of marijuana was found in his garage after the shooting.

In phone conversations while Soria was in jail, he told family members “I took those stupid pills and blacked out and did a bunch of stupid things.”

He also acknowledged to his mother that he had confessed his crimes.

“I ratted myself out,” he said. “I threw myself under the bus.”

But he also confirmed a scenario his mother presented. The gun belonged to Eubanks, not Soria. Soria wrestled the gun away and shot his way out.

“You needed to defend yourself,” the mother said.

“Yes, I did.”

Timm noted that despite Soria’s assertions about being high and blacking out, he now has a detailed memory of the shooting.

“You remember the incident of the shooting in precise detail. Is that true?”

“Yeah, it’s true.”

Soria now recalls that he went to Eubanks’s front door and looked through a window next to the door. He saw Eubanks approaching, empty-handed. He looked again and Eubanks was holding a 2-foot machete.

Soria said he panicked and ran to the back of the house, where he peered through a gap in the draperies and observed Eubanks and two assault rifles. Eubanks was holding one rifle, and when he raised it up Soria opened fire.

Soria was on the witness stand all day yesterday and is expected to continue testifying this morning.

Among the charges against him is premeditated attempted murder, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years to life in prison. He also is charged with two counts of personal discharge of a firearm. This is California’s “Use a Gun and You’re Done” law, with a conviction adding up to 25 years to life to the sentence.

Soria posted bail and remains out of custody.

###

Jose “Joe” Valentine Rocha was born August 10, 1931, in San Bandan, Terciera, Azores in Portugal. Joe passed away September 26, 2022, in Fortuna.

Joe was preceded in death by his son, John Rocha and sisters, Theresa Rocha, Mary Frietas and Edith Rocha.

He is survived by his wife of 46 years Gail Rocha and daughters, Carmen Rocha and Mandy Rocha; sister Elmira LeScog and brother David Rocha; grandchildren Conner Newbry, Dillion Newbry, Savanah Jacobs, Christopher Jacobs, Lowel Archambault; great-grandchildren Zaiden, Carter, King and one on the way; nephews Lionel, Tony, Danny, and Todd; niece Maggie.

As a child in Portugal, he worked in his father’s blacksmith shop until at the age of 12 he started working at an American Air base during WWII. At the age of 17 Joe moved to the United States and worked as a milker on a dairy farm in Gustine, California from 1948 to 1950.

At the age of 19 Joe moved to Humboldt County, where he worked at Pacific Lumber for 16 years, from 1950-1966.

At the age of 35, Joe moved to San Rafael, where he worked in a brickyard until 1969. He then at the age of 38 moved to the Rohnert Park/Cloverdale area to work at the Golden Gate Bridge from 1969 to 1992, when he retired.

After retiring in 1992, Joe moved his family back to Humboldt to the Rio Dell area where Joe spent his remaining years.

Joe was a people person and never met a stranger. If you met Joe, you remembered him. He was not called “Wild Man Joe” for no reason, although most knew him as “Portuguese Joe.” Joe was big, loud and very proud of his Portuguese heritage. He LOVED riding his Harley. He loved cars, motorcycles and airplanes. In reality he just loved going fast.

There will be a celebration of Joe’s life Saturday, October 29, 2022, at 2:00 PM at the Rio Dell Fireman’s Hall.

###

The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Joe Rocha’s loved ones. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here. Email news@lostcoastoutpost.com.

Deanna Doris Deuel Lesku passed away on Friday, October 21, 2022 at Redwood Memorial Hospital. She was born on August 7, 1943 in Arcata to Francis and Elina Deuel.

Deanna attended Stewart Elementary, Arcata High School and Humboldt State University. She graduated from HSU in 1966 with a degree in Education. She began her teaching career at Dow’s Prairie in McKinleyville and retired in 2002 from Ferndale Elementary after 36 years of teaching. She taught at Ferndale for 33 years. During these years she taught first, second and third grades.

She had a passion for teaching. She brought her own flair to her style of teaching. She was the original Miss Frizzle. She dressed to match her curriculum and made learning fun in her classroom. She had a lollipop tree for spelling, crocheted Christmas stockings for each child every year and made many other crafty items for her students. She will be forever known as the Flamingo Lady. After her retirement, she continued to help in the schools by substituting, reading to various classes, helping in her daughter’s classroom and reading at the Fortuna Library.

Deanna was always involved with her church, whether it was as church secretary, President of the women’s group, teaching Sunday School or serving on the Church Council. She was a loyal member of Christ Lutheran Church in Fortuna.

Deanna married the love of her life, Laszlo Lesku, on June 8, 1968. They enjoyed many happy years together until his death in 2014. Her devoted daughter Erika was born in 1971. Deanna and Erika spent many happy times together traveling, shopping and other adventures. She was the most loving and devoted mom to her daughter.

Deanna was very crafty and loved to share her talent with others. She was always making pins or crocheting something. She loved to give these treasures to others to uplift them. She continued her crafts up until a few weeks before she passed in spite of her physical limitations.

Deanna was preceded in death by her parents Francis and Elina Deuel and her beloved husband Laszlo. She is survived by her daughter Erika, son-in-law Demetrius Williams and granddaughters Kaelyn, Aaliyah and Jasmine Williams. She also leaves behind her brother Darrel Deuel and his wife Janet, her niece Jamie Eisenbeisz (Tim) and nephews Dan Deuel (Miriam) and Darren Deuel (Candace) and her great nieces and nephews Tori, David, Cody, Emily, Justin, Tatum, Peyton, Josie, Isaac, Christopher and AiLan. She also leaves behind special friends Pat, Dottie, Ilene, Pam and Corinne.

There will be a private burial at Ocean View Cemetery and a memorial service on Friday, October 28 at 1 p.m. at Christ Lutheran Church in Fortuna. Deanna loved bright colors and dressing for every holiday, so if you attend please dress in some way that honors her sense of style, even if it is wearing something crafty she made you.

The family would like to thank the doctors, nurses and staff at Redwood Memorial Hospital for their great care, Dr. Tamara Douglass for her years of care and her caregiver Mary Murphy.

###

The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Deanna Lesku’s loved ones. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here. Email news@lostcoastoutpost.com.

Andrew McKaye of Fortuna died on October 18 at the age of 99.

He was born on October 12, 1923 at Diamond Lake, Michigan, where he spent the summers of his childhood and youth. During the school year he lived in South Bend, Indiana, which he considered home.

In 1941 he graduated from South Bend Central High School and nine days later, on June 12, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy. He made the navy a career and retired in August 1961 after attaining the rank of Senior Chief Hospital Corpsman. He was a veteran of World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

After completing his naval service he attained a degree and teaching credentials at San Francisco State University. For 24 years he was a teacher and librarian for South Fork High School in Miranda.

In 1947 he married Jean Collins of New York City who preceded him in death in September 2019. They had a son, Professor Kenneth Robert McKaye, who is a permanent resident in both Cape Maclear, Malawi and Helsinki, Finland; and two grandchildren, Mark Robert, now in Connecticut, and Lara Nicole now in Seattle.

Andrew was a dedicated conservationist and educator who requested that donations or contributions be made to any conservation organization, especially ones that focus on preserving redwoods and Beaches of Northern California.

A celebration of his life will be held at Redwood Lodge Conference Center 1800 Riverwalk Drive, Fortuna between 1:30 and 4:30 p.m. on August 27 2023. RSVP: For additional information contact andy.party2023@gmail.com.

###

The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Andrew McKaye’s loved ones. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here. Email news@lostcoastoutpost.com.

PREVIOUSLY: In the Wake of Bongio Controversy, Supes to Consider Changes to the Planning Commission

###

On Tuesday the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors considered reducing the number of members on the Planning Commission from seven to five but wound up thinking better of it, keeping the body at seven people while changing the method by which a commissioner can be removed.

The board also adopted a code of conduct and ethics by which the commission must now abide. The lack of such a code has become an issue recently after former Commission Chair Alan Bongio made racist comments at an Aug. 18 hearing.

Staff had recommended reducing the size of the commission to just five members after surveying 21 other counties and finding that 18 of them have five-member planning commissions.

“So, while having seven we’re not necessarily a unicorn, we are not in a field of like beings with that makeup,” County Administrative Officer Elishia Hayes said. 

But the supervisors weren’t keen on the suggestion.

“I think that seven gives us a diversity [and] helps us meet quorum,” Fifth District Supervisor Steve Madrone said. “I think it’s a positive thing. And I think when we have problems it’s easy to take a knee-jerk reaction and think, ‘Okay, here’s how we solve this problem.’” 

This appeared to be a reference to the Bongio controversy. “But really, I think you need to go after the problem directly rather than trying to just reduce numbers,” Madrone said.

Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell disagreed initially, saying she doesn’t consider this a knee-jerk response but would like to reduce the size of the commission to five. She also said she supports a staff recommendation to require a four-fifths vote of the county supervisors to remove a member of the Planning Commission, and later in the meeting she said this whole conversation was initiated before the Bongio controversy.

In the current setup, each supervisor appoints one member to the Planning Commission and that supervisor is solely responsible for removing their appointee, should the occasion arise. A majority of the board must approve the appointment of each at-large member, of which there are two. 

Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson said he was initially in favor of reducing the commission to five, plus including one active alternate who could step in when another member is missing. But he said that after learning that quite a few other counties in the state do have seven-member commissions he changed his mind and would like to see Humboldt’s remain that size. 

First District Supervisor Rex Bohn said he likes seven, too, as well as the suggested four-fifths vote requirement for removal. 

Turning to the matter of his own appointee (Bongio), Bohn said, “I’ll address the elephant in the room. I’ve had a lot of talks with my planning commissioner and everybody says that I shouldn’t put friendship into this, and sorry, you’re wrong. I have friends and I have friends because I respect them.”

Somewhat cryptically, he added, “And going forward, we’ll address it. But it’s mine to address and I’ll wear that.”

Board Chair and Fourth District Supervisor Virginia Bass said she, too, likes having a seven-member commission. Madrone later made a motion to keep it that way and to implement the four-fifths provision for removal.

Bushnell then brought up the matter of commissioners holding “incompatible offices,” a clear reference to At-Large Commissioner Melanie McCavour, whom the supervisors considered removing late last year over conflict-of-interest concerns. McCavour is employed as the tribal historic preservation officer of the Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, a role that has required her to recuse herself from a few planning commission deliberations, including the one that’s been the source of such controversy of late.

The Wiyot Tribe recently submitted a letter to the county objecting not only to Bongio’s remarks but to McCavour’s dual roles, which the tribe argued gives her a privileged position for communicating with her fellow commissioners and county staff.

Bushnell said she’d support the board majority’s preference for a seven-member commission, “but I want those seven members to be able to participate and not have to recuse continually.” 

She said people thought she was “picking on someone” when she brought up McCavour’s potential conflict last year. “I was not. I am not now,” Bushnell said. “I want to ensure that our Planning Commission works well and does its job.”

Madrone agreed that the issue needs to be discussed, but the board agreed to bring it back at a later date. 

The board also indicated that it would like to change the length of appointments for the two at-large Planning Commission members, reducing their terms from four years to two and staggering those terms so one at-large commissioner will be up for renewal each year. However, that arrangement wasn’t finalized. The board will consider options at a later date. 

PREVIOUSLY:

• Big Housing Project in Westwood Neighborhood Bumps Gateway Talk From Arcata Planning Commission Discussion Last Night

###

The Westwood Garden Apartments in Arcata is likely getting a lot more residents, after the Arcata Planning Commission approved a project that will more than double the size of the apartment complex on Westwood Court. 

The complex, which is one of several sites in Arcata owned by Strombeck Properties, currently holds three buildings with a total of 60 two-bedroom apartments. Strombeck Properties and its hired consulting firm LACO Associates now plans to add 11 buildings, which would hold 102 total one-bedroom units. Initially the planners proposed adding 12 buildings, but during a meeting in September the planning commission rejected the proposed project, asking that the planner return with an amended design that retained more open space on the property. 

In addition to removing one of the buildings from the plan, the designers also changed the general layout of the buildings. Four buildings that include parking on the ground floor with apartments above will be added to the perimeter of the existing buildings on the site, and seven apartment buildings will be added to the green space at the center of the property. 

The planners had also initially proposed removing 49 trees from the property to make room for the new developments. But at the request of the planning commission, the project now only includes removal of 21 trees, plus the planting of 33 additional trees. 

Several community members, mostly residents or neighbors of the Westwood Garden Apartments, voiced concerns over the project during Tuesday’s meeting, urging the commission not to approve the development. The biggest issue people had was with the closeness of the buildings, which they feared would cause privacy issues and would shade the existing residents. 

Raelina Kriskston, a resident of the apartments and a current Arcata city council candidate, delivered a very thorough presentation to the commission, highlighting the buildings “being placed unreasonably close together” and the project taking away some of the outdoor recreation area that is very important to the residents. 

“Yes, we need housing,” Kriskston said during the meeting. “But moreover, we need housing that will serve our community in the future. This project is objectively and practically inferior to quality and standards that we as a community need in order to grow in a healthy way.”

Kriskston pushed for a design that included more stories on the buildings, so that the same number of units could be fit into a smaller footprint – something she pointed out is what the City is looking to do with the proposed Gateway Area Plan. But Steve Strombeck, the owner of the property, said he is not willing or able to support a design with buildings more than two stories tall. 

“At this point in time, I’m not willing to go up three or four stories,” Strombeck, who had called into the meeting, said. “It’s just cost-prohibitive.” 

Despite the developers having made the changes requested by the planning commission at the last meeting, several of the commissioners still weren’t thrilled with the project. But because of the need for housing in Arcata, Commissioner Daniel Tagney made a motion to approve the project.

At first it seemed like no one was going to second the motion. Then Commissioner Judith Mayer said she feared that if the commission didn’t vote on the project, that the planners would return with a proposal that was subject to Housing Accountability Act – which limits government bodies’ ability to deny affordable housing projects – and would no longer need the Planning Commission’s approval.

Christian Figueroa then seconded the motion, which passed 4-1, with Mayer dissenting. Planning Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock had recused herself because her husband did work on the project. 

Now that the Planning Commission has approved the permit for the project, the permit has a 10-day appeal period. If no one appeals within 10 days, the development can move forward.

###

PREVIOUSLY: An Initiative to Reshape Humboldt’s Cannabis Industry Qualified for the Ballot, and It Has Growers Worried

###

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors had just three options, and they didn’t seem too happy about any of them.

On Tuesday the board was presented with an initiative that, if approved by voters, would effectively prohibit new cannabis-growing operations countywide while ushering in a host of stringent new rules for industry, including a prohibition on farms larger than 10,000 square feet.

The board listened to two hours of passionate public feedback, the vast majority of it from local growers who lambasted the initiative as an ill-conceived and deceptively promoted measure that would destroy their livelihoods and decimate the storied Humboldt County cannabis industry.

But backers of the initiative — a relatively small group of retirees living in Kneeland — had submitted more than 7,000 signatures supporting their petition, more than enough to qualify the measure for ballot. The signatures had been approved by the Elections Office, and so per California law, the board could only do one of three things:

1. adopt the ordinance without alteration, either right there in the meeting or within the next 10 days,
2. submit the ordinance to the voters (again, without changing anything) at the next available statewide election — in this case, the California primary in March of 2024, or
3. direct staff to prepare a report on the ordinance, and when that report is presented at a subsequent meeting either adopt the ordinance or order a special election, which would cost the county $35,000 to $40,000.

Somewhere around the nine-hour mark of an 11-hour meeting, the board unanimously chose option 2, agreeing to put the measure on the March 2024 ballot, though before taking the vote several supervisors — particularly Fifth District Supervisor Steve Madrone — indicated that they’d like to work toward an alternative outcome.

Madrone asked Betsy Watson, one of the two organizers present for the meeting, if she and her fellow organizers would be willing to work with the county and the community over the next year-and-change to explore other ways to modify the county’s cannabis regulations — and maybe even pull their initiative off the ballot.

Watson agreed. “Anything can be improved,” she said, adding, “We would would demand, though, that it not just be cannabis people that are being consulted and negotiated with. … What we would need to do is to consult a broad level of the community so we can all live here.”

The board also directed staff to prepare a report analyzing the potential impacts of the initiative and suggesting possible next steps.

As mentioned in a story from last week, the organizers of this initiative feel that the weed industry has run amok in Humboldt County, with the proliferation of what they see as industrial-scale cultivation activities that have dramatically impacted their way of life, threatening their water supplies, increasing traffic and harming the environment. 

Their year-long organizing and signature-gathering effort led to the Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative, which was subsequently (and rather unfortunately) renamed the Large-Scale Commercial Cannabis Cultivation Restrictions Amending Humboldt County General Plan, Local Coastal Plans and County Code Amendments Initiative.

Early in yesterday’s hearing, Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell asked Planning and Building Director John Ford, “With this petition, what does it mean to cultivators that are already licensed? And what does it mean to future cultivators?”

“What it will essentially do,” Ford replied, “is prohibit new applications for cultivation.” He explained that the initiative would set new caps on the number of permits allowed in each watershed, limiting them to five percent above the number of permitted operations present on March 4 of this year. He displayed a spreadsheet (screenshot below) showing that this cap has already been exceeded in all but two watersheds countywide.

“And as you can see,” Ford said, “there are actually only two permits left to be allocated.” 

The initiative would also require all cultivation sites to be located on roads that meet Category 4 standards, Ford said, which is not currently the case under either version 1.0 or version 2.0 of the county’s commercial cannabis land use ordinance (though roads that don’t meet those standards must be analyzed for capacity). 

Existing permit-holders with operations larger than 10,000 square feet would be considered “legal non-conforming” operations upon implementation of the initiative, Ford explained.

“They will continue to be legal permits,” he said, but because the ordinance now limits new permits to 10,000 square feet, they couldn’t expand. And there’s some question as to how much they could modify their property. Could they add water tanks? Could they add solar power? Could they do some other things that may make a lot of sense and be highly beneficial from an environmental standpoint?”

He said the language of the ordinance seems to indicate that such changes would require a discretionary permit, and for operations larger than 10,000 square feet, those types of changes wouldn’t be allowed at all.

The initiative also says that multiple permits cannot be held by an individual or on a given property, “and is unclear if that just cannabis cultivation permits or [if] that includes nursery, processing, distribution, manufacturing, canna-tourism, micro-business — things that in [ordinance] 2.0 the county was very intentional about wanting to have value added, particularly to small farmers, so that they could have secondary sources of income to support the cannabis cultivation,” Ford said.

Bushnell challenged the ordinance backers on a number of issues, asking them to explain why they consider 10,000 square feet an industrial-scale operation.

First District Supervisor Rex Bohn also pushed back on that notion, saying, “That’s not industrial.” He also said he feels the initiative was misrepresented by backers, who tried to get him to sign their petition by saying it would take out the “mega-grows.” 

Bushnell was distressed.

“My heart’s racing right now,” she said to the petitioners. She took issue with them singling out the cannabis industry.

“And I don’t understand. I don’t understand why you targeted only cannabis. … And I won’t support [the initiative] the way it’s written. I respect you, you know, but I am so sad for the cannabis community, for the departments that have worked so hard to bring this forward, for this board that has worked hard to try to make this work. And [cannabis farmers] are on their knees. They’re broke. Cannabis is failing. And they’re struggling for everything to keep their livelihood, and now they have anxiety again because of this. And it just breaks my heart. It does.”

Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson asked staff what qualifies as a large-scale grow, and Ford said that to have anything larger than an acre, the property must be at least 320 acres.

Wilson interjected to say he was looking for a definition of large-scale, “because this ordinance defines large-scale as anything 10,000 square feet or more. … The title is defining it before we as a community vote to define it.”

Watson stepped up to the podium shortly thereafter to defend the ordinance. She said that in general she’s not a fan of the initiative process, saying, “There was an initiative in this state that kept me from getting married.” But she added that she and her neighbors were unable to get results any other way.

“While gathering 7,000 signatures we found that citizens felt overlooked,” Watson said. “There’s the perception that this whole thing is completely out of control. … We’re offering a forward-looking plan. It’s a vision for cannabis cultivation in the future. We are not anti-cannabis people at all.”

The public comment period kicked off with Ross Gordon, policy director for the Humboldt County Growers Alliance, a cannabis business organization. He criticized the title and content of the initiative as well as the process by which it came to the board.

“These rules and restrictions were developed without public process and input,” Gordon said. “Many are not viable to implement or comply with, as Director Ford spoke to, and many would result in the bureaucratic strangulation of the small cannabis farms in Humboldt County.”

He said he believes there were two main reasons why more than 7,000 people signed the petition. 

“The first is that they falsely believed that this was an initiative primarily about restricting large-scale commercial cannabis cultivation in Humboldt County, and they believed the stated purpose and intent: to support small farmers,” he said. “I believe if they knew what was actually in this initiative, many people would not have signed it.”

Dozens of growers spoke over the next two hours, and several refrains were heard over and over again. Many said they’re struggling to survive and that this initiative would be the final nail in the coffin for their operations. Others asked the supervisors to formally oppose the initiative and maybe come up with an alternative one themselves. Many said the measure would destroy the industry altogether here in Humboldt County.

“I suggest that we request a full and robust report on this initiative … ,” farmer Nate Whittington said. “Let [voters] see the facts of just how absurd this initiative is, and I think we’ll see that the county will resoundingly vote it down, and then we can move on to more productive discussions.”

Nik Erickson, owner of Full Moon Farms, said the organizers failed to consult the industry. “Small farms were not asked what challenges we were facing, how this initiative would help us and how it would deter corporate cannabis from coming into Humboldt County when in fact it does the exact opposite,” he said. “It creates impossible hurdles for small farms.”

His voice began to tremble as he continued. “This initiative threatens all that we’ve worked so hard for,” he said. “This initiative, in fact, is the extinction of small farms.”

After everyone in board chambers had taken their turn, Board Chair Virginia Bass turned it over to people calling in via Zoom. The thrust of the comments remained the same. 

“We are greatly, greatly affected by the overregulation already and with everything we put into our business, our life,” said the owner of Humboldt Renegade Farms. “This was our passion, our livelihood. We can’t take any more. We’re hanging on by a thread. This would really be the nail in the coffin for us.”

When the comment period finally wrapped up, Wilson remarked that the conversation was overdue.

“We shouldn’t have this hearing today; we should have had this hearing the day that there was an initiative put on the table,” he said. Instead, the board was left in what he called “this very locked-in situation” with only the three options.

Madrone pointed out that proponents of an initiative can withdraw it anytime until 88 days before the election, and he implored organizers to engage in discussions.

“I know Betsy to be a person who spent decades in this county working on conflict resolution,” he said, adding that Watson and fellow organizer Mark Thurmond had said they didn’t really want to pursue an initiative in the first place. 

“So I’m not going to give up hope,” Madrone continued. “I really believe it is entirely possible for us as a board, working with our community, to figure out: what are the things we can do to make this all better?”

No date was set for when staff will bring back its analysis of the initiative’s impacts, nor did the board iron out a method for working further with the initiative’s proponents. But with the understanding that the conversation will continue, the board voted unanimously to approve the measure for the March 2024 ballot. 

###

DOCUMENT: The Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative (full text)