The Brief

Big Bear Lake's most famous bald eagle couple might be expanding their family.

About 5,000 people were tuning in on Thursday to nonprofit Friends of Big Bear Valley's livestream when Jackie and her mate Shadow welcomed their first egg of the season.

Bald eagles usually prefer to live in areas with trees and large bodies of water, according to Amber Schenk, director of the Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon Restoration Project at the Institute for Wildlife Studies.

That means these big birds are relatively scarce in the Los Angeles area — according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the area around Big Bear Lake is one of just a few areas on the mainland of Southern California where bald eagles are known to nest.

Schenk said events like Jackie and Shadow's new egg can raise awareness of other efforts to conserve bald eagles populations, like not using lead ammunition and staying away from nests.

"If people can relate to what they're seeing in their homes, on their TVs, or on their computers, then they have a greater chance of wanting to continue to conserve those species," Schenk said.

The Institute for Wildlife Studies, which works with bald eagles on the Channel Islands, also runs livestreams to share the lives of their own resident eagles — like Jak, Cruz and Chase — with the world.

"People really get attached to the pairs and their life history: What goes on every year? What are they doing?" Schenk said. "They all have names, so that makes them more human to us. But, you know, especially seeing those babies grow up is something that, you know, no one should miss that."

The incubation period for bald eagle eggs is about 35 days, according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. That means the egg might hatch on or around Feb. 29.

Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that eggs will produce viable offspring — last year, Jackie and Shadow had to abandon their nest after their eggs failed to hatch.

Watch Jackie, Shadow and their egg live on Friends of Big Bear Valley's website or their YouTube channel.

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department is investigating alleged irregularities into the 2025 special election to redraw California’s congressional districts. Now, Sheriff Chad Bianco, also a Republican candidate for governor, says the state’s attorney general is interfering in the investigation.

In February, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department executed warrants for 1,000 boxes of ballots from the Registrar of Voters.

Bianco said the investigation stems from local election watchdog group, Riverside Election Integrity Team. The group alleges there were some 45,000 more votes tallied than ballots received and logged by the Riverside County Registrar of Voters.

Bianco said the purpose of the investigation is to determine if the allegation has any merit.

“It is basically a fact finding mission. This investigation is simply to physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes reported,” said Bianco at a press conference Friday.

Bianco said a Riverside Superior Court Judge issued an order last week to appoint a special master to oversee the investigation. He said the investigation will start over soon under the supervision of the court, but it’s not clear when or when it’ll be completed.

Attorney General Rob Bonta sent Bianco three letters between Feb. 26 and March 6 asking Bianco to halt the investigation and share case files with his office.

The letters — reviewed by KVCR — show that Bonta requested case files to understand the basis for the investigation. Bonta also raises concerns about whether there was probable cause for warrants to be issued in the first place. Bonta’s office said there’s no precedent for a law enforcement agency to investigate election irregularities.

In a statement, Bonta said Bianco has not provided the requested information. The statement goes on to say “what we have been able to learn raises serious questions about the merits of this investigation. We are especially concerned with legal deficiencies in the affidavits underlying the warrants, including the omission of material facts.”

Meanwhile, County Executive Officer Jeff Van Wagenen said in a statement, “the County and the Registrar of Voters will continue to comply with all lawful court orders and with all legal obligations applicable to election materials and election administration.”

Growing fears about aggressive immigration enforcement tactics — and confusion over federal “public charge” rules that can affect green card and visa applications — are prompting some California families to retreat from child care and early education programs, even when their children qualify.

Under federal immigration law, officials can deny green card and visa applications if they determine the applicant is likely to rely heavily on government assistance. Although many benefits cannot be considered for purposes of the “public charge” rule, advocates say many families avoid social service programs altogether out of an abundance of caution.

Changes proposed in November by the current administration would repeal a 2022 rule that advocates say provided significant clarity on when the rule applies. During the previous Trump administration, the government made changes that widened what could be considered “public charge.” Even after those changes were rescinded, fears persist.

Advocates say the fear and confusion that are already impacting families could be far-reaching for a state like California, where it is estimated that nearly 1.1 million children have at least one parent who is undocumented, according to the National Center for Children in Poverty. More than half of those children are U.S. citizens and over 250,000 under the age of 5.

“With public charge there’s a level of anxiety around signing up for public benefit programs, submitting information, and/or scrutiny that may be increased and make people uncomfortable because of whatever the public rhetoric may be or the perception that it creates risk,” said Stacy Lee, chief learning officer and senior managing director of early childhood at the nonprofit Children Now.

She noted that many child care providers are uniquely positioned to support families because they are not only aware of the impact of immigration raids, but many have also developed trust with immigrant families who might be confused about proposed policy changes.

While public charge does not apply to U.S. citizen children and affects only specific types of immigration cases, many families, including those with mixed citizenship status, still withdraw from public benefits programs out of fear that participation would jeopardize their residency or protection from deportation, advocates say.

“Even when I was representing clients as an immigration attorney and I would tell them 100% that I was sure they were not going to be affected, that their case was exempt from public charge, sometimes they just still wouldn’t [enroll in public programs] because the fear is so severe,” said Liza Davis, advocacy director at The Children’s Partnership.

What is the current policy on ‘public charge’?

The current policy affirms that the public charge test is used only in specific immigration cases and does not apply to a wide range of people, including asylum seekers, U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants and lawful permanent residents applying for citizenship.

“A public charge only shows up when you are an individual that is submitting an application for a very specific form of relief, which a lot of people don’t qualify for,” Davis confirmed.

Additionally, only specific uses of certain benefit programs are considered.

Depending on a person’s specific immigration situation, cash assistance programs like CalWORKS could be considered for public charge tests. CalWORKs is California’s version of the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which many families rely on for benefits such as child care, stable access to food and other basic necessities, like diapers.

Davis encourages families to seek accurate information and assistance. She says concerns about public charge often spread by word-of-mouth among applicants who may be comparing cases without properly accounting for the complexity of the immigration system, which includes many different types of applications with varying rules.

“We’re not able to anticipate what will happen in a different administration, but if this need is absolutely essential for you and you qualify for it right now, then you should really consider taking the help because it’s so important to the well-being of the children in your household,” Davis said she advises families.

Further exacerbating the issue is the lack of definitive certainty on whether and when rules related to public charge may change.

“Public charge has just been historically weaponized,” and different federal administrations have either made or proposed changes, leaving a sense of instability,” said Davis. “The ebb and flow, the unknown of it, and the fact that we can’t say ‘this is not going to change’ — there is no guarantee.”

How child care providers can support immigrant families with young children

Lee from Children Now says that home-visiting programs, which provide parenting support in a young child’s home, are one way to keep families accurately informed about anticipated changes to their benefits and how they can remain connected to social services.

“The standout has been families who have access to home visiting have someone they can trust, that they can ask questions to,” Lee said. “They can talk to their home visitor, who can explain to them what’s going on, what’s real, what’s not real. It’s hard to navigate what’s actually happening versus what’s just a lot of aggressive words or what’s being held up in courts.”

In 2025, about 18,200 children from over 17,000 families in California received home visiting services, according to the National Home Visiting Resource Center. It is estimated that nearly 2.6 million children from nearly 2 million families in the state would benefit from home visiting services.

What is the latest proposed change?

The latest proposed change would mostly repeal the 2022 rule clarifying when public charge applies, but does not offer regulations to replace existing rules. Advocates argue that the lack of clarity can lead families to disenroll or avoid eligible public benefits.

The administration acknowledges that changes to public charge rules between 2019 and 2022, “heightened fears among immigrant families about participating in programs and seeking services, such as health coverage and care.”

The current proposal, filed by former Department of Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem, also recognizes the far-reaching impact of families withdrawing from public services out of fear. “DHS has determined that the rule may decrease disposable income and increase the poverty of certain families and children, including U.S. citizen children. DHS continues to believe that the benefits of the action justify the financial impact on the family.”

At a rally in February, the mayor of West Hollywood said he’s advocated for direct rail access to the city for years. Each time a new line was built, Mayor John Heilman said he was told it wasn’t the city’s time.

“Now is our time,” he said at the rally.

L.A. Metro’s Board is set to vote on Thursday on the staff-recommended route for the northern extension of the K Line, which would place three much sought-after rail stations in West Hollywood.

The decision over the train route is a political test for the board. West Hollywood has established itself as a powerfully pro-transit city and has for years studied the feasibility of fronting billions of dollars to kickstart the project without raising taxes.

At the same time, a small contingent of homeowners in an historic Mid City neighborhood continue to reject Metro staff’s assurances, backed by years of studies and history, that the train and its construction will have minimal, if any, effect on their daily lives.

The homeowners have met with L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, who has a seat on the board of the countywide transportation agency, as recently as March 16. Metro Board Director Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker, who lives in the neighborhood where residents are concerned, was also at the meeting despite recusing herself from public meetings about the project.

L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who has held positions as mayor and City Council member of West Hollywood and has a seat on the Metro Board, characterized the decision on Thursday as an existential one for Metro.

“Are they interested in being serious partners in building infrastructure when people come to the table with billions of dollars to invest?” Horvath said to LAist on Wednesday after a Metro committee declined to take a position on the rail extension. “Or are we going to move in a different direction?”

L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath has worked with and alongside West Hollywood to bring Metro rail to the city. L.A. Mayor Karen Bass has engaged privately with Lafayette Square residents who are opposed to the route for the K Line Northern extension,

(

Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

Primer on the extension

The K Line currently runs from Redondo Beach to Crenshaw and stops at the LAX/Metro Transit Center. Earlier in March, Metro officials recommended a route for the train to continue north through Mid City and West Hollywood and terminate at the Hollywood Bowl.

L.A. Metro staff recommended the San Vicente-Fairfax alignment for the K Line Northern extension. The alignment is shown in this map in a dotted green line. The pink line represents the current K Line.

(

L.A. Metro

)

The recommended route would attract 60,000 daily trips, the most of the routes studied by Metro. It would also reach a higher number of residents and jobs within a half-mile of the nine proposed stations, according to Metro staff estimates.

Committee meeting lays bare the politics at play 

During the public comment period at Metro’s Planning and Programming committee meeting on March 18, supporters celebrated the transformational potential of the route.

The route would connect to the D Line in Wilshire and the B Line in Hollywood, closing a north-south gap that currently exists in Metro’s rail network. The extension would link to cultural hubs, including the Museum District and Hollywood Bowl, major employers such as Cedars Sinai Medical Center and queer nightlife along Santa Monica and Sunset boulevards.

Also at the meeting, Lafayette Square residents expressed concerns, which have persisted for years, over the effects of tunneling on property values, noise and vibration, as well as the planned demolition of a nearby grocery store.

Based on the concerns, the Metro Board directed agency staff in October 2024 to do additional analysis and community outreach. That work, which cost an additional $2.3 million, filtered into the recommendation Metro staff will present to its board on Thursday. The presentation includes a modified route that minimizes underground easements under residential neighborhoods and assurances that tunneling will be deep enough to zero out any surface-level disruptions.

“They still want to tear down our only grocery store and our only drugstore,” Wade Eck, a 25-year resident of Lafayette Square, said to LAist. “That’s where people should really question what’s going on.”

Metro said it’s committed to relocating the Ralph’s that would be demolished before construction.

The fissure in public opinion about the train was enough for acting director of the committee, Ara Najarian, to suggest the discussion continue at the full board meeting Thursday, which he termed a “more august forum,” rather than issuing a recommendation.

Najarian said he supports the route as proposed by Metro staff, but he wants to ensure Bass can weigh in. The mayor could still share her thoughts on Thursday even if the committee recommended the item for approval.

The mayor’s meetings

Bass’ office told LAist she participated in meetings on March 11 and 16 about the K Line Northern Extension. The March 16 meeting involved members of the Lafayette Square neighborhood.

Bass supports the extension, her office said, but didn’t specify if that meant she supports the Metro staff-recommended route, would like to see a modification or wants to delay the vote entirely.

“Mayor Bass supports the K Line Northern extension because it will ease congestion, create jobs and expand access to culture, education, opportunity and housing,” her office said in a statement. “Mayor Bass regularly meets with community members and believes residents should have their voices heard at Metro headquarters.”

Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker, who is one of the mayor’s appointees to the Metro Board, was present for both meetings, Bass’ office said.

The founding member of a faith-based development group in South L.A., Dupont-Walker’s current residence is in Lafayette Square, according to an LAist review of public records.

When the item came up at the committee meeting on Wednesday, Dupont-Walker recused herself, citing a “perceived conflict.”

When reached by email and phone, Dupont-Walker declined to comment on the nature and terms of her recusal and in what capacity she attended the meetings with the mayor.

“Unfortunately while deliberations are in process this month, I am not engaging [regarding] this matter,” Dupont-Walker said in an email to LAist.

Metro Board Member Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker, a Lafayette Square resident, as recused herself from public meetings about the extension but has participated in private meetings with the L.A. mayor about the project.

(

Brian Feinzimer

/

LAist

)

West Hollywood isn’t shaken

West Hollywood City Councilmember Chelsea Byers grew up in Phoenix, Arizona, and told her parents she wanted to move to a city that was walkable and had a train.

“ My parents now live in that city in Arizona, while I am waiting for a train here,” Byers said to LAist.

Byers said she’s hoping the politics and behind-the-scenes maneuvering doesn’t jeopardize the opportunity the train extension presents for West Hollywood.

In 2018, the West Hollywood City Council initiated the process of studying how the city could, in coordination with L.A. County, capture a certain proportion of future property tax growth in a defined area near the project and funnel it towards construction. Critically, this plan wouldn’t involve raising taxes.

“Every time a property is redeveloped or sold, it adds to that increment, which adds to the amount of money that you can raise,” Eli Lipmen, head of transit advocacy group Move LA and supporter of the Metro-recommended route for the extension, said to LAist.

The Metro-staff recommended route is the most expensive of the options studied, with an estimated capital cost of nearly $15 billion. That cost far exceeds the $2.2 billion allocated toward the project in the expenditure plan for Measure M, the half-cent sales tax for transit projects county voters approved in 2016.

Byers said a swift decision on Thursday is critical to the success of the financial plan, known as an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District, since the city has a “huge list” of redevelopment projects on the horizon.

If the Metro staff-recommended route is approved on Thursday, West Hollywood City Council and the L.A. County Board of Supervisors would separately pursue creating the district within which property tax growth could be captured.

Though she was “disappointed” that the vote on Thursday will happen without the recommendation from the committee, Horvath ultimately struck an optimistic tone.

“ I believe that this agency is committed to a future that connects our region …  and I think this alignment really is an important component of that regional conversation,” she said.