After taking lessons and crewing on others boats I am about to take the plunge and buy my first boat. Right now I am leaning heavily towards Catalina based on the recommendations of some very satisfied friends. Recognizing that there has already been some discussion regarding the pro's and cons of the new 350 vs. the 36, I would appreicate any input. Alhough we plan to spend the occasional night on the boat, since we live close to the San Francisco Bay, most of our time we will be day sailing. Although I have no pretense of becomming a racer, the thought of casual beercan/club racing is appealing although primarily we anticpate using the boat for cruising. Some of the "experts" I have spoken to have suggested that the "two digit" Catalina's are better that the "three digit" Catalinas in pure sailing ability (if not accomodations}. Nobody seems to have anything kind to say regarding Hunter. Also, is one of these boats better suited for the heavy winds of the San Francisco Bay? I understand that there is no subsitute for trial sailing the two boats and the personal preference for layout etc., however thought that some insight from the experienced sailors on this board would be useful as I begin to perform my due dilligence. thanks in advance.
- Status
350 vs 36 (again)
Scroll down the page on the big boat forums and you will see this exact same question posed about 7-10 days ago...
Scroll down the page on the big boat forums and you will see this exact same question posed about 7-10 days ago...
Catalina Mid 30 Footers
I think that you are making the right choice in Catalina for sailing on the Bay. The quality is good and the equipment is sized properly to handle our windy summer conditions. I haven’t sailed on a 350 but I am docked next to both a 350 and 36. The 350 has a raised deck to accommodate a much larger interior layout. This increased volume makes it look much more massive than the 36. I haven’t had an opportunity to race the 350 yet, but I understand that it has a PHRF of about 160, which is much higher than the C34 (148) and C36 (140?). But remember, it’s not the PHRF number that matters, it’s how well you sail it against that number. To get a test sail, may I suggest contacting the C36 and C34 fleets in S.F. Bay? I think that there are 350’s in both fleets also. Now, if you want the finest boat crafted by man for mariners, why don’t you check out the Catalina 34? We sail rings around all the others.
I think that you are making the right choice in Catalina for sailing on the Bay. The quality is good and the equipment is sized properly to handle our windy summer conditions. I haven’t sailed on a 350 but I am docked next to both a 350 and 36. The 350 has a raised deck to accommodate a much larger interior layout. This increased volume makes it look much more massive than the 36. I haven’t had an opportunity to race the 350 yet, but I understand that it has a PHRF of about 160, which is much higher than the C34 (148) and C36 (140?). But remember, it’s not the PHRF number that matters, it’s how well you sail it against that number. To get a test sail, may I suggest contacting the C36 and C34 fleets in S.F. Bay? I think that there are 350’s in both fleets also. Now, if you want the finest boat crafted by man for mariners, why don’t you check out the Catalina 34? We sail rings around all the others.
C350 PHRF rating
Well, I'm not quite sure about the PHRF rating of the 350 - quoted in another post as about 160 if I remember right. The linked site shows that the base rate for the C350 in Galveston Bay is 144 - of course the adjusted rating will probably be higher - accounting for stuff like a fixed prop, roller furling, maybe the 135 instead of the 150%, etc. etc. etc. - and everybody's PHRF handicapper will end up seeing things differently as well. I'd be surprised if the C350 doesn't rate very close to the C34 and C36, and if I'm not mistaken, the 350 has a longer waterline length than the 36 as well? Happy discussing! Tim Brogan April IV C350 #68 Seattle
Well, I'm not quite sure about the PHRF rating of the 350 - quoted in another post as about 160 if I remember right. The linked site shows that the base rate for the C350 in Galveston Bay is 144 - of course the adjusted rating will probably be higher - accounting for stuff like a fixed prop, roller furling, maybe the 135 instead of the 150%, etc. etc. etc. - and everybody's PHRF handicapper will end up seeing things differently as well. I'd be surprised if the C350 doesn't rate very close to the C34 and C36, and if I'm not mistaken, the 350 has a longer waterline length than the 36 as well? Happy discussing! Tim Brogan April IV C350 #68 Seattle
Spec compare
So, my own post made me go check it out. Boat LWL LOA Disp Sail area 34 29'0 34'6 12,500 528 36 30'3 36'4 12,500 555 350 31'3 35'3 16,635 731 All the above specs are from this site. The 350 is heavier, has an extra foot of waterline - which adds to theoretical hull speed, and almost 50% greater sail area. that the other two. Who should be faster? Tim Brogan April IV C350 #68 Seattle
So, my own post made me go check it out. Boat LWL LOA Disp Sail area 34 29'0 34'6 12,500 528 36 30'3 36'4 12,500 555 350 31'3 35'3 16,635 731 All the above specs are from this site. The 350 is heavier, has an extra foot of waterline - which adds to theoretical hull speed, and almost 50% greater sail area. that the other two. Who should be faster? Tim Brogan April IV C350 #68 Seattle
C36 also available with tall rig
The C36 MKII offers two rigs, the standard with 555 sq. ft. of sail and the tall rig with 601 sq. ft. I believe the tall rig with the fin keel is the preferred configuration for the C36. If only the C36 had a separate shower stall and a larger holding tank I would definitely go for the 36 as I'm planning on living aboard. I think it has the best layout of just about any under 40' sailboat. Otherwise, the 350 seems to be the deal except that because it IS the deal, Catalina has been hiking the price aggressively, to the point where I'm now considering a C390 that my dealer still has in stock as they're not that far apart in price now.
The C36 MKII offers two rigs, the standard with 555 sq. ft. of sail and the tall rig with 601 sq. ft. I believe the tall rig with the fin keel is the preferred configuration for the C36. If only the C36 had a separate shower stall and a larger holding tank I would definitely go for the 36 as I'm planning on living aboard. I think it has the best layout of just about any under 40' sailboat. Otherwise, the 350 seems to be the deal except that because it IS the deal, Catalina has been hiking the price aggressively, to the point where I'm now considering a C390 that my dealer still has in stock as they're not that far apart in price now.
Slight spec correction
Tim posted the specs as: Boat LWL LOA Disp Sail area 34 29'0 34'6 12,500 528 36 30'3 36'4 12,500 555 350 31'3 35'3 16,635 731 Not quite right on the displacements. It's actually 13,635 according to Catalina Yachts, for both wing and fin keels, and the 36 mkII wing is 14,100. So corrected, all wing keels, fin keel displacement in () tall rig sail area in (): Boat LWL LOA Disp Sail area 34 29'0 34'6 12,550 (11,950) 528 (554) 36 30'3 36'4 14,100 (13,500) 555 (601) 350 31'3 35'3 13,635 (13,635) 731 (n/a) So on the basic specs, the 350 has a longer waterline, higher SA/DISP. Note the massive sail area difference even over the 36 TR.
Tim posted the specs as: Boat LWL LOA Disp Sail area 34 29'0 34'6 12,500 528 36 30'3 36'4 12,500 555 350 31'3 35'3 16,635 731 Not quite right on the displacements. It's actually 13,635 according to Catalina Yachts, for both wing and fin keels, and the 36 mkII wing is 14,100. So corrected, all wing keels, fin keel displacement in () tall rig sail area in (): Boat LWL LOA Disp Sail area 34 29'0 34'6 12,550 (11,950) 528 (554) 36 30'3 36'4 14,100 (13,500) 555 (601) 350 31'3 35'3 13,635 (13,635) 731 (n/a) So on the basic specs, the 350 has a longer waterline, higher SA/DISP. Note the massive sail area difference even over the 36 TR.
Ooops... And I screwed up the sail area
731 for the 350 was based on 135%, the others 100%... Lets try again... Fin keel and tall rig in ()... Boat LWL LOA Disp Sail area 34 29'0 34'6 12,550 (11,950) 528 (554) 36 30'3 36'4 14,100 (13,500) 555 (601) 350 31'3 35'3 13,635 (13,635) 613 (n/a) Not quite as large an advantage, but still more sail than the tall rig...
731 for the 350 was based on 135%, the others 100%... Lets try again... Fin keel and tall rig in ()... Boat LWL LOA Disp Sail area 34 29'0 34'6 12,550 (11,950) 528 (554) 36 30'3 36'4 14,100 (13,500) 555 (601) 350 31'3 35'3 13,635 (13,635) 613 (n/a) Not quite as large an advantage, but still more sail than the tall rig...
NERTZ (C350 C36 Comps)
Dave I sure wish you the best of luck. Given your question and the answers from the first responders that say, essentially, "Hey, can't you read?", what part don't you get? It's your choice. You can get lots of people telling you that their boats are their "BEST." Malarkey!!! Go sit on the boat. Go sail on the boat. Go spend a night with your significant other on the boat. It's YOUR choice. But you've done that already. Your post and question is intelligent, thoughtful and comprehensive. BUT IT MAKES NO SENSE if you've done everything you said you've done! There's NOTHING more that we can add to, given your question. I sure don't understand the concept of your questions. Who are you trying to convince? GO TAKE the F'ing PLUNGE. You've done your own homework, what more can anyone add? Catalinas and Hunters and other boats sure take the wind on SF Bay. Not too many sink from the wind. I could go on. I think your question is basic, but you're well past that. GO FOR IT. WE'RE HERE TO HELP. But stay with YOUR choice.
Dave I sure wish you the best of luck. Given your question and the answers from the first responders that say, essentially, "Hey, can't you read?", what part don't you get? It's your choice. You can get lots of people telling you that their boats are their "BEST." Malarkey!!! Go sit on the boat. Go sail on the boat. Go spend a night with your significant other on the boat. It's YOUR choice. But you've done that already. Your post and question is intelligent, thoughtful and comprehensive. BUT IT MAKES NO SENSE if you've done everything you said you've done! There's NOTHING more that we can add to, given your question. I sure don't understand the concept of your questions. Who are you trying to convince? GO TAKE the F'ing PLUNGE. You've done your own homework, what more can anyone add? Catalinas and Hunters and other boats sure take the wind on SF Bay. Not too many sink from the wind. I could go on. I think your question is basic, but you're well past that. GO FOR IT. WE'RE HERE TO HELP. But stay with YOUR choice.
Rude posting
Hey "Charterer", how about toning it down a bit? Your recent post "Nertz..." was decidedly unhelpful, arrogant, petty and a general waste of time. People come to these pages looking for advice and don't need to be subjected to poorly articulated diatribes. Perhaps you should try to find a different outlet for venting your hostility.
Hey "Charterer", how about toning it down a bit? Your recent post "Nertz..." was decidedly unhelpful, arrogant, petty and a general waste of time. People come to these pages looking for advice and don't need to be subjected to poorly articulated diatribes. Perhaps you should try to find a different outlet for venting your hostility.
Rude Posting
Bob, I agree 100%. As you said, people come to these pages for help and advice. "Charterer" - If the intent of your posting was to convey a helpful and constructive idea, I think it pretty much got lost in all your preachy stuff. It's just a suggestion, but input to this forum is much better received when people don't feel like they are being talked down to.
Bob, I agree 100%. As you said, people come to these pages for help and advice. "Charterer" - If the intent of your posting was to convey a helpful and constructive idea, I think it pretty much got lost in all your preachy stuff. It's just a suggestion, but input to this forum is much better received when people don't feel like they are being talked down to.
Get the One You Like Best
Hi Dave, I suggest that you and your wife spend a few hours sitting on the 350 and the 36 and then pick the one that feels best for you. If you don't have a strong preference, let your wife decide. I have seen a few great reports on the 350 from the Bay Area. Maybe you can walk the docks and talk to a few owners. Maybe you could pickup their email addresses from either this chat room or from Sailnet. Personally, I am not concerned about the ratings, etc. I have sailed offshore on a 36 and was very impressed. I like the 350 that my wife picked; it sails great just like all the other folks say it does. Getting buy-in from the spouse may be more important than anything else. PS You may note that the moniker "Charterer" suggests one that does not own or sail one of these boats.
Hi Dave, I suggest that you and your wife spend a few hours sitting on the 350 and the 36 and then pick the one that feels best for you. If you don't have a strong preference, let your wife decide. I have seen a few great reports on the 350 from the Bay Area. Maybe you can walk the docks and talk to a few owners. Maybe you could pickup their email addresses from either this chat room or from Sailnet. Personally, I am not concerned about the ratings, etc. I have sailed offshore on a 36 and was very impressed. I like the 350 that my wife picked; it sails great just like all the other folks say it does. Getting buy-in from the spouse may be more important than anything else. PS You may note that the moniker "Charterer" suggests one that does not own or sail one of these boats.
Does Anyone Know the PHRF for a C350?
I tried looking up the rating on our SF Bay YRA’s website, but no luck. Likewise, I couldn’t find it in other regions either. The Galveston Bay PHRF had it at a respectable 144 (Base), but then they had something called a “Bay Rating” which was 165. My Neighbor, raced as a 169 in his local beer can series which seems consistent with Galveston’s “Bay Rating”. Our PHRF committee allows a lot more adjustments for non-YRA events and this could explain the discrepancy. Total sail area, mast height and LWL are not the only parameters that go into the PHRF number. Weight, volume and cross section, among other factors are also used. For example, I race against a Cal 34 which has a PHRF of 170 compared to my Catalina 34’s 144 rating. I think that there is a difference between the three and two digit Catalina’s. The three digit boats all typically have much larger and (for Catalina), more innovative cabin designs. Compared to the two digit boats, which are Catalina’s older, more traditional layouts (The MKII versions having the redesigned “sugar scoop” flared stern). I think that the potential three digit buyer is looking for more room for cruising and weekending. As for performance, I just don’t know. I imagine that the increased freeboard will give you more windage to deal with in our windy Bay conditions. But at 16,000 pounds displacement, I don’t know if that matters all that much. The C350 is about 3,000 pounds heavier than a C36 which affect performance. Now for a personal bias: I’m not wild about the vertical bows and truncated sterns for the following reasons. I think that you need a certain amount of forward cant in the bow to allow the boat to ride up, before it slices through chop. Increasing LWL vs. LOA is great and everything, but I think you need relatively flat conditions to make that boat really move. I also like to have a little rocker in the stern – have the stern rise up out of the water. If that transom is partially submerged, I think that there is a certain amount of suction that will act against the boat’s forward motion. All that said, I know of some pretty discriminating sailors who bought some of the earliest C350’s, so there is definitely something there.
I tried looking up the rating on our SF Bay YRA’s website, but no luck. Likewise, I couldn’t find it in other regions either. The Galveston Bay PHRF had it at a respectable 144 (Base), but then they had something called a “Bay Rating” which was 165. My Neighbor, raced as a 169 in his local beer can series which seems consistent with Galveston’s “Bay Rating”. Our PHRF committee allows a lot more adjustments for non-YRA events and this could explain the discrepancy. Total sail area, mast height and LWL are not the only parameters that go into the PHRF number. Weight, volume and cross section, among other factors are also used. For example, I race against a Cal 34 which has a PHRF of 170 compared to my Catalina 34’s 144 rating. I think that there is a difference between the three and two digit Catalina’s. The three digit boats all typically have much larger and (for Catalina), more innovative cabin designs. Compared to the two digit boats, which are Catalina’s older, more traditional layouts (The MKII versions having the redesigned “sugar scoop” flared stern). I think that the potential three digit buyer is looking for more room for cruising and weekending. As for performance, I just don’t know. I imagine that the increased freeboard will give you more windage to deal with in our windy Bay conditions. But at 16,000 pounds displacement, I don’t know if that matters all that much. The C350 is about 3,000 pounds heavier than a C36 which affect performance. Now for a personal bias: I’m not wild about the vertical bows and truncated sterns for the following reasons. I think that you need a certain amount of forward cant in the bow to allow the boat to ride up, before it slices through chop. Increasing LWL vs. LOA is great and everything, but I think you need relatively flat conditions to make that boat really move. I also like to have a little rocker in the stern – have the stern rise up out of the water. If that transom is partially submerged, I think that there is a certain amount of suction that will act against the boat’s forward motion. All that said, I know of some pretty discriminating sailors who bought some of the earliest C350’s, so there is definitely something there.
PHRF rating for the 350
I guess I'm the Neighbor, Hi George. We received a 169 rating in the wednesday races based on in-mast furling, 110% Jib and the 3 bladed cruising prop. Even with those adjustments we were not very competitive. I later added a cruising spinnaker and they let me keep the 169 rating. This helped a little. All of our racing has been in the tight quarters of the estuary and with little winds and lots of tacking our extra weight is a bit of a penalty compared to the Merit 25s that we are racing against. I imagine that we would do better in some of the bay races where the boat can move out and stretch its legs a bit.
I guess I'm the Neighbor, Hi George. We received a 169 rating in the wednesday races based on in-mast furling, 110% Jib and the 3 bladed cruising prop. Even with those adjustments we were not very competitive. I later added a cruising spinnaker and they let me keep the 169 rating. This helped a little. All of our racing has been in the tight quarters of the estuary and with little winds and lots of tacking our extra weight is a bit of a penalty compared to the Merit 25s that we are racing against. I imagine that we would do better in some of the bay races where the boat can move out and stretch its legs a bit.
I'd love to hear what Ivana says about that rating
Thats unbeleivably generous that they gave you a rating of 169 AND with a cruising spinnaker. I know that the C36 doesn't get that high of a rating and the C350 has a much higher SA/D than the C36. And in the lighter winds (in theory) the C350 should move better than the C36.
Thats unbeleivably generous that they gave you a rating of 169 AND with a cruising spinnaker. I know that the C36 doesn't get that high of a rating and the C350 has a much higher SA/D than the C36. And in the lighter winds (in theory) the C350 should move better than the C36.
Break down of PHRF 169?
Mark, could you break down the 169 rating into base, correction for furling main, correction for 3-blade prop, correction for small jib, any other corrections? Wing keel? Just curious... Also, I don't know where this displacement number of 16,000 keeps coming from... According to Catalina, the wing keel 350 (13635 disp) is about 500lbs LIGHTER than a wing keel 36 MkII (14100 disp)
Mark, could you break down the 169 rating into base, correction for furling main, correction for 3-blade prop, correction for small jib, any other corrections? Wing keel? Just curious... Also, I don't know where this displacement number of 16,000 keeps coming from... According to Catalina, the wing keel 350 (13635 disp) is about 500lbs LIGHTER than a wing keel 36 MkII (14100 disp)
Specs
I'm probably responsible for introducint the 16k displacement number into this discussion - I got it from the Catalina Owners site info for each model. Looking harder at sites like the one referenced below, I see that the 13k number is probably more appropriate. A document I picked up from www.phrfne.org/adj.htm does an interesting job of breaking out some adjustments to base PHRF ratings. As we all know, every area has it's own uniqueness in this area. From that document, for my boat I'd figure: +6 sec/mile for two blade solid prop +3 sec/mile for 135% largest LP sail +6 sec/mile recreational adjustment (limited inventory, jib roller furling, no exotic sail +12 sec/mile "cruising handicap" - no flying sails & masthead rig Starting at 144, that might all add up to 171... Tim Brogan April IV c350 #68 Seattle
I'm probably responsible for introducint the 16k displacement number into this discussion - I got it from the Catalina Owners site info for each model. Looking harder at sites like the one referenced below, I see that the 13k number is probably more appropriate. A document I picked up from www.phrfne.org/adj.htm does an interesting job of breaking out some adjustments to base PHRF ratings. As we all know, every area has it's own uniqueness in this area. From that document, for my boat I'd figure: +6 sec/mile for two blade solid prop +3 sec/mile for 135% largest LP sail +6 sec/mile recreational adjustment (limited inventory, jib roller furling, no exotic sail +12 sec/mile "cruising handicap" - no flying sails & masthead rig Starting at 144, that might all add up to 171... Tim Brogan April IV c350 #68 Seattle
Wife's choice
I second Richards remark. Looked at specs and pictures. Settled on either the C34 or 36, but I was leaning toward the C36 until that fatefull day when there was a 34 and 36 side by side. Toured them both, the boat show was winding down so we had them to ourselves. Did the 34 first, then the 36, back to the 34. Wife said this is the one. We love the boat and haven't had a second thought about the 36. There is alot of passion in sailing, go with the boat the family is passionate about!
I second Richards remark. Looked at specs and pictures. Settled on either the C34 or 36, but I was leaning toward the C36 until that fatefull day when there was a 34 and 36 side by side. Toured them both, the boat show was winding down so we had them to ourselves. Did the 34 first, then the 36, back to the 34. Wife said this is the one. We love the boat and haven't had a second thought about the 36. There is alot of passion in sailing, go with the boat the family is passionate about!
why we chose 350 over 36
Personal preferences will ultimately determine what boat you choose. All I can tell you is our preferences as to why we chose the 350 over the 36. 1. We do not race our boat. If we want to race we crew on other boats. 2. We are moving from an older c34 model. a. We wanted a newer boat in the theory (notice I said "theory" that it would lesson some of the maintaince. b. We wanted a bigger engine than the 21 hp in our c34.(accomplised with either 350 or 36) c. We wanted more storage. I think both the 36 and the 350 accomplished that. d. I did not like the counter on the 36 right at the bottom of the companionway stairs. I imagined myself hitting that when falling down the stairs. e. The aft cabin in the 350 "seems" more spacious for the occasional guests. f. Liked the forward birth on the 350 more so than on the 36. g. We liked the separate (albiet small) shower stall. Keeps the head area drier and cleanier g. There have been a ton of 36's made and consequently there are always a lot on the market at any given time. We will most likely only being keeping this boat approx 5 years so we felt given the popularity of the 350, it would be easier to resell. Who knows if that will actually be true in 5 years. h. Like the stairs better on the 350 than the 36. i. Since we do not sail in the ocean, we liked the larger cockpit on the 350. We spend a lot of time on our boat during the season and we just "felt" more comfortable on the 350. Don't forget, the 350 is actually more expensive than the 36 so this might be a factor for you also. To help us make our decision, we listed all the pro's and con's of each boat. Gave a weighted score to each, then totaled it up. (hey, can't help it, married to an engineer). This exercise helped confirm what we already suspected, the 350 was for us. Truely, I don't think you can go "wrong" with either boat (unless there is some racing issue involved). Both are spacious, comfortable and fun to sail. Buy something, go have fun, and don't second guess your decision!!
Personal preferences will ultimately determine what boat you choose. All I can tell you is our preferences as to why we chose the 350 over the 36. 1. We do not race our boat. If we want to race we crew on other boats. 2. We are moving from an older c34 model. a. We wanted a newer boat in the theory (notice I said "theory" that it would lesson some of the maintaince. b. We wanted a bigger engine than the 21 hp in our c34.(accomplised with either 350 or 36) c. We wanted more storage. I think both the 36 and the 350 accomplished that. d. I did not like the counter on the 36 right at the bottom of the companionway stairs. I imagined myself hitting that when falling down the stairs. e. The aft cabin in the 350 "seems" more spacious for the occasional guests. f. Liked the forward birth on the 350 more so than on the 36. g. We liked the separate (albiet small) shower stall. Keeps the head area drier and cleanier g. There have been a ton of 36's made and consequently there are always a lot on the market at any given time. We will most likely only being keeping this boat approx 5 years so we felt given the popularity of the 350, it would be easier to resell. Who knows if that will actually be true in 5 years. h. Like the stairs better on the 350 than the 36. i. Since we do not sail in the ocean, we liked the larger cockpit on the 350. We spend a lot of time on our boat during the season and we just "felt" more comfortable on the 350. Don't forget, the 350 is actually more expensive than the 36 so this might be a factor for you also. To help us make our decision, we listed all the pro's and con's of each boat. Gave a weighted score to each, then totaled it up. (hey, can't help it, married to an engineer). This exercise helped confirm what we already suspected, the 350 was for us. Truely, I don't think you can go "wrong" with either boat (unless there is some racing issue involved). Both are spacious, comfortable and fun to sail. Buy something, go have fun, and don't second guess your decision!!
Cost of 350 vs. 36
Does anyone happen to know what the current base price w/o options is for a new 350 vs. 36? I have a friend who is considering the 350 and 36 (also Beneteau 361), likes the 350, but the cost will be somewhat of a factor. Both the 36 and 350 are great boats for their own individual reasons. What I paid for my 350 at the beginning of this year is probably not very current now, as I heard that Catalina has increased the price of the 350 significantly due to the boat's popularity. Also, since the 350 is made in Florida and (I believe) the 36 is made in Woodland Hills, CA, shipping a new 350 from Florida to California will add some additional cost to the base price, FBO So. Calif.
Does anyone happen to know what the current base price w/o options is for a new 350 vs. 36? I have a friend who is considering the 350 and 36 (also Beneteau 361), likes the 350, but the cost will be somewhat of a factor. Both the 36 and 350 are great boats for their own individual reasons. What I paid for my 350 at the beginning of this year is probably not very current now, as I heard that Catalina has increased the price of the 350 significantly due to the boat's popularity. Also, since the 350 is made in Florida and (I believe) the 36 is made in Woodland Hills, CA, shipping a new 350 from Florida to California will add some additional cost to the base price, FBO So. Calif.
- Status