The Brief

Tuesday is the final day for constituents of Santa Ana Councilmember Jessie Lopez to vote on whether she should remain in office. The outcome of the controversial recall — which is mired in legal dilemmas — could determine whether Orange County's second-largest city continues to lean in favor of policies like rent control and police oversight, or does an about-face.

Here's what you need to know:

Why is Jessie Lopez facing recall?

The recall is primarily backed by the Santa Ana Police Officers Association, which has spent more than $500,000 on the recall effort since January. Real estate groups have also kicked in at least $223,000 for the effort, including $100,000 from the National Association of Realtors.

Tim Rush, a real estate executive who chairs the recall campaign, cited Lopez's voting record in favor of rent control and cutting the police budget as primary reasons for the recall. Rush told LAist that Lopez's politics were "very, very liberal" and that she had an "anti-business sort of philosophy."

"[Lopez] wants to portray it that it's the corrupt police union [funding the recall effort]," Rush said. "But that isn't, by any means, all of it. … The money that's poured into this campaign has a lot to do with business owners and property owners who are upset over rent control."

Santa Ana is the only city in Orange County with a rent control ordinance. Its policy restricts rent increases to 2.54% through the end of August 2024. A handful of cities in L.A. County also cap rent increases under 3%.

You can read more from recall proponents here.

Santa Ana Councilmember Jessie Lopez was elected in 2020 to represent the city's Ward 3.

(

City of Santa Ana

)

What do her supporters say?

Lopez's supporters say her actions on the city council have led to greater police oversight and helped low-income residents fight unjust evictions and steep rent hikes. She has also noted that she voted in favor last year of increasing the number of police officers by 24 positions.

Lopez's effort to fight the recall is backed by community members, local Democratic leaders, including county Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento, and several unions. These include the United Food and Commercial Workers, which has contributed close to $25,000.

In all, Lopez has raised around $200,000 to fight the recall.

Hairo Cortes, executive director of the Latinx youth advocacy group Chispa, said if Lopez loses her seat on the Santa Ana City Council, it could also mean the end of the council majority that championed policies like rent control, for which his group has advocated for years.

"It really is about losing the gains that the community has made if this recall were to be successful," Cortes told LAist.

You can hear more from Lopez and supporters here and here.

What are the legal issues with the recall?

A couple of weeks ago, the Orange County Registrar of Voters made a late discovery that the recall election was based on bad data.

Specifically, the city used population data and geographic boundaries from Lopez's current district when it should have used information from when voters first elected her in 2020, before redistricting took place.

Using the correct data, the registrar determined that the recall petitioners didn't actually collect enough signatures to trigger an election. And nearly 1,200 voters who should be able to vote didn't get ballots.

A Santa Ana voter who said they should have gotten a ballot filed a legal complaint asking for an injunction. But an O.C. Superior Court judge denied that request last week and said he won't make a ruling until after the election.

So, the election is going forward according to its original parameters.

Lopez told LAist she and her legal counsel are still considering options for challenging the election. And she noted that she and her supporters already have one previous legal claim pending in which a supporter alleged that recall proponents were lying to voters to get their signatures for the recall petition.

"This election is not about me anymore. The issues are so much bigger," Lopez told LAist last week. "The voters need to make a decision who they really want to represent them, special interests that push policies that harm working class people, or people who were born and raised in this city who are always willing to listen to their concerns."

Who gets to vote?

Lopez is encouraging constituents who didn't get a ballot to request a provisional ballot and vote.

It's unclear whether those ballots would be counted — O.C. Registrar Bob Page told LAist last week he intends to administer the election based on the current district boundaries and voter population initially approved by the city. That means voters who live in the city's current Ward 3.

You can look up your address on the city's interactive map.

How can I vote?

Mail-in ballots must be postmarked by Nov. 14.

Two vote centers are also open on Tuesday from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. at the following addresses:

• O.C. Health Care Agency - Public Health Learning Center, 1729 W. 17th St., Building E, Santa Ana
• O.C. Registrar of Voters, 1300 S. Grand Ave., Building C, Santa Ana

Voters can also take ballots to one of three official drop boxes up until 8 p.m. Tuesday:

• O.C. Health Care Agency, 1725 W. 17th St., Santa Ana
• Orangewood Foundation, 1575 E. 17th St., Santa Ana
• O.C. Registrar of Voters, 1300 S. Grand Ave., Building C, Santa Ana

The Los Angeles Unified School District is preparing for possible “Super El Niño” storms that could damage schools and lead to closures, the district announced in a media release Tuesday.

District staff are clearing drains, trimming trees and checking roofs, windows and doors. LAUSD is also testing emergency equipment, including pumps and emergency lighting systems, and stocking supplies such as flashlights and drinking water.

“Preparing for severe weather starts well before the first raindrop,” Superintendent Andrés Chait said in a statement. “We can’t control the weather, but we can take steps now to protect our students and employees and help our schools stay ready.”

The district will monitor weather patterns using information from the National Weather Service and local emergency officials, it said.

LAUSD encouraged families to update their contact information to ensure they receive district calls, texts and emails. Families should also monitor weather alerts, follow emergency officials’ instructions, avoid flooded roads and review safe routes to and from school, according to the release.

“Preparing for a storm is a shared effort — from the crews maintaining school buildings to the principals reviewing emergency plans and the families making sure they can receive critical updates,” LAUSD said in the release. “By taking these steps before the rain begins, Los Angeles Unified is working to help students and employees stay safe and keep school communities as prepared as possible for the winter ahead.”

Southern California is likely in for a solid dose of rain this week, just days after heat and Santa Ana winds helped fuel several wildfires across the region.

Forecasters expect the bulk of the rain to roll into the Los Angeles basin Wednesday night and continue into Thursday morning, with a small chance of thunderstorms and hail.

The San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley and coastal areas across L.A. and Orange counties could get around an inch over the next few days. Hills and mountains could get up to 3 inches.

“We could see some pretty high rain rates,” said National Weather Service meteorologist Mike Wofford. “It's a good storm for this time of year — it's a little stronger than what we would see normally.”

The possibility of significant rain in the mountains raises concerns about flooding in areas recently burned in wildfires, particularly around the Bryson Fire burn scar near Malibu, which is only a few days old. Burn scars can’t absorb heavy rainfall and are susceptible to landslides.

The National Weather Service has issued a flood watch for the Santa Monica Mountains and surrounding communities from Wednesday afternoon through Thursday. That means heavy rain there could flood streets, creeks and rivers. The flood watch area includes both the Bryson Fire and Palisades Fire burn scars.

This will also be the first nontropical storm of the season, meaning it’s moving into the region from the north. Most storms that hit Southern California follow a similar path, especially during the winter, unlike the tropical storms that formed off the coast of Mexico and brought muggy weather to the region this summer.

Nontropical storms also bring cold air to the region. On Wednesday and Thursday, forecasters expect highs in the 60s and 70s. High elevations will be even cooler.

The science research institute that would likely receive $4.2 billion in public taxpayer money if voters approve Proposition 38 this November had only three employees as of last month — far fewer than the 51 staffers it planned to have hired by last year.

Public statements and public records CalMatters obtained raise questions about how well prepared the institute is to shepherd so much money if the bond measure passes.

Prop. 38 would allocate up to $8.4 billion in bonds for scientific research on diseases and cures concerning the immune system, with an emphasis on finding treatments for Alzheimer’s, cancer and heart disease. The ballot language stipulates that a single, unnamed research institute would receive half the bond’s money to conduct research and partner with other researchers if it meets highly specific criteria. Bonds are a type of debt that must be repaid.

Previous reporting by CalMatters found only one institute in California currently meets those criteria: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The institute’s principal funder is billionaire Gary K. Michelson, who wrote Prop. 38 and is by far the largest donor to its political campaign.

Backers of the proposition said state bond money is needed to stabilize research funding after President Donald Trump repeatedly attempted to cut existing and future federal science grants.

The measure’s critics say Prop. 38 is well-intentioned but poorly designed because it overlooks the many established public and nonprofit university and hospital research labs in California. They also say California should not subsidize subsets of scientific research and instead should support research more broadly.

CalMatters obtained documents that included the five-year business plan of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The plan was part of the formal affiliation agreement between UCLA and the institute, which the two parties signed in August 2024. Among other details, the agreement requires the institute to pay UCLA 7.5% of the net revenue of any drugs and technologies developed by the institute’s staff. The institute is one of the founding tenants at a UCLA-owned research park in West Los Angeles, where the institute is leasing 235,000 square feet of research space, the institute says.

Far fewer employees than plan called for

Between summer 2024 and summer 2025, the institute committed to hiring “approximately” 51 employees, including six executives, five “world-class” scientists who can lead research labs, and 40 other employees, such as data scientists, lab technicians, biologists and administrative personnel. Between 2025 and 2027, the institute would hire roughly 90 more workers, including 10 research lab leaders, according to the agreement.

But John Mazziotta, a senior UCLA official who also serves as a board member of the immunology institute, last month said the institute has hired just three employees: a chief operating officer, a general counsel, and a scientific advisor, and “they're well into the search” for a director. Mazziotta, the CEO of UCLA Health and vice chancellor for health sciences at UCLA, made his comments during the Sept. 16 UC Regents meeting.

The Yes on Prop. 38 campaign has repeatedly refused to comment on whether the bond was written specifically for the immunology institute. Claudia Briggs, a spokesperson for the campaign, told CalMatters in July that whichever nonprofit receives the $4.2 billion portion of the bond fund should be a sophisticated one that “is prepared to accelerate lifesaving research immediately while maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, accountability, and stewardship of public funds.”

At a September press conference, a Yes on Prop. 38 spokesperson appeared to confirm CalMatters’ findings that only one institute currently qualifies to be the one to receive half the bond money. “It is very likely that CIII, which is a research institute affiliated with UCLA, will qualify for half of the funds under the current criteria,” said Robin Swanson. CIII is the initialism for the immunology institute.

According to the five-year plan, the institute was supposed to spend $25 million on personnel between 2024-25 and 2025-26 and $45 million total on operating expenses in that time, including maintenance, utilities and rent. It was also supposed to spend an additional $167 million in that time on capital expenses, such as construction and demolition. However, Mazziotta told UC regents that the institute had so far spent a total of $20 million on “operating expenses, hires” and other expenses.

The Yes on 38 campaign refused CalMatters’ request to interview Michelson for this story, as did Michelson himself in a separate email. A spokesperson for the institute, Becky Warren, sent a written statement that didn't answer CalMatters' questions about employing far fewer people than the five-year plan laid out. Instead, she highlighted the promise of the institute and a few of its milestones, including signing the affiliation agreement with UCLA and clearing a state environmental review of its forthcoming research facility.

The institute won’t get state bond money if it isn’t ready to begin work, “plain and simple,” wrote Swanson, the Yes on 38 spokesperson, in an email. She stressed that though the institute very likely qualifies, the ultimate decision to award half the bond funding is up to the California Department of Public Health.

Institute facility will be built by 2028

The UCLA research park that houses the institute isn’t slated to be fully built until at least late 2028, according to the agenda item of the September UC regents meeting. The research park is a former mall UCLA acquired in late 2023 that’s now undergoing major retrofitting.

But the 2024 affiliation agreement between UCLA and the institute anticipated this. The agreement permitted the institute to use UCLA health research space on another campus property on an interim basis. Mazziotta told regents that research is underway there.

Mazziotta also told the regents the institute's construction costs are not fully funded — it still needs roughly $100 million. He said UCLA was in serious talks with a donor to provide about $50 million to the institute.

If Prop. 38 passes, the bond funding would be provided in increments based on how often the institute requests new money that senior state officials approve. If all the funds are depleted, Californians would repay the bond at a rate of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years.

Institute would be exempt from public records act

CalMatters submitted the public records request to UCLA, which must comply with the California Public Records Act. The institute, as a private nonprofit, does not have to comply. And while Prop. 38 would channel billions of dollars in taxpayer money to the institute, the proposition’s language specifically exempts the nonprofit that will receive the $4.2 billion from state public meetings laws, political reform laws and the public records act. The other half of the funds would go to a council that’ll pick projects led by researchers from a limited pool of universities and nonprofits. The council would generally be governed by the state’s political reform act, which prohibits financial self-dealing.

Briggs defended the institute’s exemption in Prop. 38, writing that applying state transparency laws to existing private organizations would “not fit well with how private entities are organized and operate.” Instead, she noted the selected nonprofit institute would be required to publish annual reports on its research progress and financial plans plus commit to annual state audits, among other disclosures written into the ballot measure.

Still unclear to the UC regents is the relationship between UCLA and the institute on matters of public disclosure. Four senior UCLA officials sit on the institute’s board. So is a document held by those UCLA officials public because it’s related to UCLA affairs or private because it’s related to the institute’s affairs? UC’s general counsel couldn’t explain where that dividing line is after a regent member asked him. The regent member, Michael Cohen, said he wants more clarity when the regents meet again in November.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party endorsed Prop. 38, as have dozens of patient and research advocacy groups, plus the state GOP. The union of graduate students and post-doctoral researchers, whose pay often relies on science research funding, has also endorsed the proposition. The union doesn’t represent faculty.

Money raised in support of Prop. 38 now exceeds $66 million, including at least $61.2 million in contributions from Michelson and his policy institute. Roughly $14 million of that includes loans from Michelson. The no camp has raised about $8,800

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.