Screenshot of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors’ online meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 2020.
County Health Services using Remdesivir for COVID-19 patients; get glimpse of COVID-19 era libraries
By Daniel Borsuk
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors discussed possibly placing a half-cent sales tax measure to fund health and social services on the November ballot and approved hiring a pollster on a split vote. The tax measure would be in addition to a proposed Bay Area-wide half-cent sales tax measure for transportation expected to be on the November ballot, as well.
Approve Hiring Pollster for Half Cent Sales Tax Study
In response to the Contra Costa Needs Assessment from the county’s Sales Tax Working Group a countywide half-cent sales tax is being proposed “to shore up access to medical and behavioral health services, and bolster county safety-net programs.” BOS 052620 Contra Costa Needs Assessment
At least for now, it is uncertain if the board will move forward with a sales tax increase measure for the November ballot. Supervisors voted 4-1, with Board Chair Candace Andersen casting the lone, dissenting vote, to spend as much as $60,000 to hire a pollster to test whether voters would support one. But since the outbreak of COVID-19, public support for such a tax measure might have waned.
“We need further direction and getting results from a poll will help,” said Supervisor Karen Mitchoff. “Before COVID, support for a tax increase was optimistic, but with COVID it might be different.”
District 1 Supervisor John Gioia, a big booster of a sales tax increase, said it would cost $30,000 to $40,000 to poll 600,000 to 800,000 prospective voters. Mitchoff said a more realistic cost is $60,000.
Both Gioia and Mitchoff serve on the Potential Sales Tax Measure Ad Hoc Committee.
“Right now, is not the time to spend county funds for a poll,” said chair Andersen of Danville.
Extend Temporary Ban on Evictions and Residential Rent Increase Moratorium
With the supervisors’ month-old ordinance that imposed a temporary ban on evictions and a residential rent increase moratorium at the end of May, supervisors acted to extend the ordinance through July 15. Supervisors also imposed a one-year grace period and defined a commercial real property eligible for the ordinance “…as an independently owned and operated business that is not dominate in its field of operation, has its principal office in California, has 100 or fewer employees, and has average annual gross receipts of $15 million or less over the previous three years.”
Figuring the economy will not recover quickly to restore jobs, some speakers asked supervisors to extend the rent increase moratorium one year.
“Keep pace with Alameda County,” said Dick Offerman of Pleasant Hill. “See that no one is evicted in our county. Extend the moratorium one year.”
Mitchoff took time to warn landlords who are violating the county ordinance. “Landlords know about this ordinance. There are some bad actors who take advantage of people who speak English as a second language, this must stop,” she said.
County Health Uses Remdesivir for COVID-19 Patients
Contra Costa County Public Health Officer Dr. Christopher Farnitano informed supervisors that Contra Costa County Public Health has begun administering the anti-viral drug Remdesivir to COVID-19 patients. A total of 105 dosages were given last week, Dr. Farnitano said.
“The company that is making it (the drug) is giving this to the United States.” Dr. Farnitano said that the drug is “This drug is somewhat beneficial.”
Dr. Farnitano said there were as of Tuesday 13 COVID-19 patients in Contra Costa Medical Center, compared to 19 patients two weeks ago. Since the outbreak of the pandemic in March, 37 persons have died from COVID-19 in the county, four deaths occurred in the past week with one of the deaths in the person’s early 30’s, which is uncommon.
So far, the county is COVID-19 testing daily 95 people per 100,000 residents when the daily goal should be 200 people per 100,000 residents.
This drew Supervisor Mitchoff to question the testing.
“We’re about halfway there,” she said. “I did not want to test, but now I want to test in order to get our numbers up.”
Board Vice Chair Supervisor Diane Burgis of Brentwood asked why the COVID-19 test takers at county sites have to wait for results as long as 10 days when persons at three state sites get results within five days.
Contra Costa County Health Department Director Anna Roth said the average turnaround for COVID-19 results is three to five days, but it could be up to 10 days.
Get Glimpse of COVID-19 Era Libraries
took a glimpse of what the COVID-19 era might look like on Tuesday visualizing the 26 public libraries could offer some type of front door service for patrons to pick up checked out books in bags and when libraries do open doors possibly on June 15 seating capacity will be reduced 20 percent at each location right when outdoor temperatures are peaking above 100 degrees and libraries often serve as cooling centers for the public.
Supervisors unanimously approved the Contra Costa County Library Pandemic Preparedness Plan presented by County Librarian Melinda Cervantes that promotes hygiene, social distancing, and reduced seating. BOS 052620 CCCL Pandemic Preparedness Plan Draft Final
“We plan to begin service as soon as possible,” Cervantes told supervisors during the teleconferenced board meeting.
During the presentation, supervisors learned 36 library accounting positions might be eliminated because of COVID-19 related revenue losses. The potential loss of the library jobs will undermine library book purchasing.
“We need to get through the state budget,” responded county administrator David Twa, who said the 36 library accounting jobs are “potential job layoffs” and are subject to the meet and confer process. The state budget will be unveiled in mid-June.
Approve Purchase of DA’s Office Mobile Forensic Vehicle
In other action, the supervisors approved the District Attorney’s Office request to execute an agreement with the City of San Jose for the expenditure of up to $200,000 to procure a mobile forensic vehicle for the Silicon Valley Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. The vehicle is expected to cost $48,285.
Read More
Photo from HSR.ca.gov.
Sacramento – Earlier today, Wednesday, May 27, 2020, the Assembly Transportation Committee Chaired by Assemblymember Jim Frazier (D- Fairfield) held an oversight hearing on the California High Speed Rail Authority’s (HSRA) 2020 Draft Business Plan. The HSRA is required to adopt and submit a final business plan to the Legislature on May 1st every two years that details funding, financing and ridership estimates for the entire project.
Since the Legislature first envisioned high-speed rail in the state in 1996 and residents first voted on Prop 1A in 2008 to help fund the project, the general idea for how the state would accomplish this has largely remained the same. The actual business plan authored by the Authority however has been riddled with issues and come under increased scrutiny from the Legislature as costs and deadlines have ballooned while reports of dysfunction and organizational chaos have become widespread.
From CA HSR 2020 Draft Business Plan.
“Once again, it seems the High-Speed Rail Authority has released in the 2020 Draft Business Plan a proposal for its future that it can’t afford and that won’t deliver what is promised. Every version of the Business Plan has increased costs and reduced scope and no longer resembles the vision promised in the 2008 ballot measure’’, said Assemblymember Frazier. “Despite efforts by myself and some of my colleagues, the Authority continues to propose electrifying a segment of a train line in the Central Valley that will add billions of dollars to the project and provide little or no benefit.”
“I believe there is a way to rescue this project from failure, but I think it requires honest evaluation and true cost-benefit analysis, neither of which the Authority has ever been able to provide”, continued Frazier. “Every iteration of the business plan comes with new promises without results. It is going to take a lot of explanation for me to believe that, this time, the Authority’s cost and ridership estimates are legitimate, and this is something the state should continue to invest in.”
Development of high-speed rail in California began more than 20 years ago. SB 1420 (Kopp), Chapter 796, Statutes of 1996, created HSRA to direct development and implementation of intercity high-speed rail service that would be fully coordinated with other public transportation services.
For more information on this legislation or to learn more about Assemblymember Frazier, please visit his website.
Assemblymember Frazier represents the 11th Assembly District, which includes the communities of Antioch, Bethel Island, Birds Landing, Brentwood, Byron, Collinsville, Discovery Bay, Fairfield, Isleton, Knightsen, Locke, Oakley, Pittsburg (partial), Rio Vista, Suisun City, Travis AFB, Vacaville and Walnut Grove.
Read MoreSome churches to participate in civil disobedience this Sunday and open for services.
“Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights”… “the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship” – 5/19/20 US DOJ letter to Gov. Newsom.
By Allen Payton
Yesterday, Monday, May 25, 2020 – Memorial Day, the day we honor and commemorate those who died for our freedoms, some of which are seriously limited, right now – California Governor Gavin Newsom issued guidelines for reopening places of worship. At first, I was hopeful that he was doing something good in response to President Trump’s directive to all the governors and the directive to California from U.S. Attorney General William Barr and the Department of Justice, last week.
But the guidelines don’t really allow most places of worship to reopen. Why? Because they’re too restrictive, limiting attendance to just 25% of building capacity or 100 people whichever is less. Plus, Newsom is leaving it up to each unelected county health officer to approve of the guidelines or not.
Now, it’s worse because they’re allowing more and more businesses to reopen – which is great – but not the churches. Our officials already considered all the vice serving businesses, including all the locations of the nation’s top abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, liquor stores, and marijuana dispensaries essential. But not the churches or other places of worship. And as of today, the governor said barber shops and hair salons can reopen.
Which part of “shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise” of religion and the other First Amendment right of freedom of peaceful assembly, don’t our officials get?
Civil Disobedience
Following in the footsteps of the black Christian ministers who led the efforts during the civil rights movement, it appears some churches will be participating in some civil disobedience with the ministers leading the effort for their rights, when they hold services this next Sunday, May 31st in defiance of state and local orders. Those in attendance will probably only be issued citations and the maximum fine is $1,000, which they can collectively fight. Plus, with $0 bail, right now none of them will go to jail. Most likely only the ministers will be cited and fined. But who knows? The Lord does and we will see just how far the government officials will take this and just how much they want to continue this fight.
Time to Elect New Leaders
It’s definitely time we elected only those who agree that places of worship are essential, not only to those who attend, but society as a whole, and will actually uphold their oaths of office, in which they swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Event the CDC recognized that in the statement for its Interim Guidance for Communities of Faith, unlike our governor in the statement included with his guidelines. The CDC wrote, “Millions of Americans embrace worship as an essential part of life. In addition, we note that while many types of gatherings are important for civic and economic well-being, religious worship has particularly profound significance to communities and individuals, including as a right protected by the First Amendment. State and local authorities are reminded to take this vital right into account when establishing their own re-opening plans.”
What did the governor include in the statement about his guidelines? Just more warnings about how public gatherings can cause more deaths. That statement includes, “There have been multiple outbreaks in a range of workplaces, indicating that workers are at risk of acquiring or transmitting COVID-19 infection. Examples of these workplaces include places of worship, long-term care facilities, prisons, food production, warehouses, meat processing plants, and grocery stores.”
“Further, it is strongly recommended that places of worship continue to facilitate remote services and other related activities for those who are vulnerable to COVID19 including older adults and those with co-morbidities. Even with adherence to physical distancing, convening in a congregational setting of multiple different households to practice a personal faith carries a relatively higher risk for widespread transmission of the COVID-19 virus, and may result in increased rates of infection, hospitalization, and death, especially among more vulnerable populations. In particular, activities such as singing and group recitation negate the risk-reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing,” Newsom’s statement continues.
Nothing about our First Amendment rights which should be protected or that corporate worship or even churches being essential to at least some Californians or society as a whole.
Support Legal Efforts
We also need to support the legal efforts of those suing the state and governor to get the courts to force him to allow the churches to reopen. One way you can do that is by supporting the Center for American Liberty, based in San Francisco and led by my friend, attorney Harmeet Dhillon and her fellow attorney, Mark Meuser, a former Contra Costa resident. Read about their cases and make a contribution, here – https://libertycenter.org/pf/covid-19-litigation/.
Another lawsuit by churches in California against Newsom and the state, which was joined by Dhillon, lost last week at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2-1 decision of a three-judge panel. Not surprising the judges who voted with the governor were appointed by Clinton and Obama, and the one judge that voted with the churches was appointed by Trump.
“These are emergency appeals,” Dhillon explained on Monday. “We filed for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court” in the recent case before the 9th Circuit.
“The DOJ sent a letter to the governor that his policies were discriminatory against churches,” she continued. “Today’s guidelines are still limiting. They’re totally arbitrary. There is no limit of 100 people for any retail establishment. Retail has a 50% capacity limit for some and none for others.”
“To tell people how they can worship, this is more unconstitutional and very problematic,” Dhillon added.
DOJ Letter to Newsom
In the DOJ letter to Newsom about “several civil rights concerns with the treatment of places of worship” due to the governor’s stay-at-home order, as well as “documents relating to the California Reopening Plan” it states “Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.” USDOJ 5.19.20 Ltr. to Hon. Gavin Newson
“Laws that do not treat religious activities equally with comparable nonreligious activities are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,” the letter continues.
“Places of worship are not permitted to hold religious worship services until Stage 3” of Newsom’s reopening plan, the letter explains. “However, in Stage 2, schools, restaurants, factories, offices, shopping malls, swap meets and others are permitted to operate with social distancing. And as noted, ecommerce and entertainment industry activities are already permitted with social distancing. This constitutes precisely the kind of differential treatment the Supreme Court identified” in the decision of another case “in which the government is not willing to impose on certain activities the same restrictions it is willing to impose on constitutionally protected religious worship.”
“Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other nonreligious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest…” the letter states.
It then refers to the recent case before the 9th Circuit and states, “Other decisions around the country…make clear that reopening plans cannot unfairly burden religious services as California has done.”
“We believe…that the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship, including in Stage 2 of the Reopening Plan.”
An email has been sent to the DOJ asking for their views on Newsom’s guidelines and if they comply with the May 19th letter. (Please check back later for updates to this column.)
Time for Action
It’s time for action and to stop living in fear, my friends. The governor’s guidelines are too restrictive and continue to clearly violate our God-given – the meaning of “unalienable” – and constitutionally protected rights of both freedom of religion and assembly. Until Newsom complies with the directives from the federal government, churches should feel free to reopen within the guidelines applied to nonreligious activities and businesses.
As the DOJ letter states, “Religious communities have rallied to protect their communities from the spread of this disease by making services available online, in parking lots, or outdoors, by indoor services with a majority of pews empty, and in numerous other creative ways that otherwise comply with social distancing and sanitation guidelines.” Local churches can do the same. We shall see if any actions are taken against the ministers and those who attend this Sunday’s services.
DOJ Letter to Governor Newsom
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530
May 19, 2020
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor of California
1303 10th Street, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Newsom:
We are writing to you to raise several civil rights concerns with the treatment of places of worship in Executive Orders N-33-20 and N-60-20 and documents relating to the California Reopening Plan.
Of course, we recognize the duty that you have to protect the health and safety of Californians in the face of a pandemic that is unprecedented in our lifetimes. You and other leaders around the country are called on to balance multiple competing interests and evaluate the constantly changing information available to you about COVID-19, and make your best judgment on courses of action.
Attorney General William P. Barr recently issued a statement on Religious Practice and Social Distancing, in conjunction with a Mississippi case in which the Department of Justice participated regarding restrictions on worship. In the statement, the Attorney General emphasized the need to practice social distancing to control the spread of COVID-19. He also noted that temporary restrictions that would be unacceptable in normal circumstances may be justified. But, “even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers. Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity.” Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
Laws that do not treat religious activities equally with comparable nonreligious activities are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). Laws that are not both neutral toward religion and generally applicable are invalid unless the government can prove that they further a compelling interest and are pursued through the least restrictive means possible. Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other nonreligious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest, absent the most compelling reasons.
Executive Order N-33-20 (March 19, 2020) ordered Californians to remain at home except to engage in authorized necessary activities as laid out by the Public Health Officer at the time and as modified going forward. The Public Health Officer’s April 28 “essential workforce” list does not appear to treat religious activities and comparable nonreligious activities the same.
The list includes “faith-based services” but only if “provided through streaming or other technologies.” In-person religious services are thus apparently prohibited even if they adhere to social distancing standards.
The list of nonreligious workers who are not so restricted by the Executive Order and essential workforce list when telework “is not practical” is expansive. For example, the list includes “Workers supporting the entertainment industries, studios, and other related establishments, provided they follow covid-19 public health guidance around social distancing.” Likewise, “workers supporting ecommerce” are included as essential, regardless of whether the product they are selling and shipping are life-preserving products or not. This facially discriminates against religious exercise. California has not shown why interactions in offices and studios of the entertainment industry, and in-person operations to facilitate nonessential ecommerce, are included on the list as being allowed with social distancing where telework is not practical, while gatherings with social distancing for purposes of religious worship are forbidden, regardless of whether remote worship is practical or not.
Even more pronounced unequal treatment of faith communities is evident in California’s Reopening Plan, as set forth in Executive Order N-60-20 (May 4, 2020), and in the documents the California Department of Public Health produced pursuant to it, including the “Resilience Roadmap” (https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap/) and “County Variance Attestations” (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Local-Variance-Attestations.aspx). Places of worship are not permitted to hold religious worship services until Stage 3. However, in Stage 2, schools, restaurants, factories, offices, shopping malls, swap meets, and others are permitted to operate with social distancing. And as noted, ecommerce and entertainment industry activities are already permitted with social distancing. This constitutes precisely the kind of differential treatment the Supreme Court identified in the Lukumi decision in which the government is not willing to impose on certain activities the same restrictions it is willing to impose on constitutionally protected religious worship. While it is true that social distancing requirements applied to places of worship may inevitably result in much smaller congregations than some faith groups would like, in our experience with other controversies around the country, many places of worship are quite content to operate at 15-25% of capacity in a way that allows for social distancing between family groups.
The Department of Justice does not seek to dictate how States such as California determine what degree of activity and personal interaction should be allowed to protect the safety of their citizens. However, we are charged with upholding the Constitution and federal statutory protections for civil rights. Whichever level of restrictions you adopt, these civil rights protections mandate equal treatment of persons and activities of a secular and religious nature.
We recognize that three U.S. District Courts have denied Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO’s) sought by plaintiffs against Executive Order N-33-20, Abiding Place Ministries v. Wooten, No. 3:20-cv-00683 (S.D. Cal. April 10, 2020) (no written opinion); Gish v. Newsom, No. 5:20-CV-755 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020); Cross Culture Christian Ctr. v. Newsom, No. 2:20-CV-00832 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2020), and one denied a TRO against the Reopening Plan, which is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, No. 3:20-cv-865 (S.D. Cal. May 15, 2020) (oral transcript ruling). These TRO decisions do not justify California’s actions. The Abiding Place, Gish, and Cross Culture TRO decisions do not address the Stage 2 reopening, and South Bay United Pentecostal does not describe why worship services can be distinguished from schools, restaurants, factories or other places Stage 2 permits people to come together. Other decisions around the country have followed Lukumi to make clear that reopening plans cannot unfairly burden religious services as California has done. See, e.g., Robert v. Neace, No. 20-5465 (6th Cir. May 11, 2020).
Religion and religious worship continue to be central to the lives of millions of Americans. This is true now more than ever. Religious communities have rallied to protect their communities from the spread of this disease by making services available online, in parking lots, or outdoors, by indoor services with a majority of pews empty, and in numerous other creative ways that otherwise comply with social distancing and sanitation guidelines. We believe, for the reasons outlined above, that the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship, including in Stage 2 of the Reopening Plan.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you wish to discuss further, please contact United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California McGregor Scott at (916) 554-2730 or mcgregor.scott@usdoj.gov.
Sincerely,
Eric S. Dreiband
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
McGregor W. Scott
United States Attorney
Eastern District of California
Nicola T. Hanna
United States Attorney
Central District of California
David L. Anderson
United States Attorney
Northern District of California
Robert S. Brewer
United States Attorney
Southern District of California
cc: The Honorable Xavier Becerra
Attorney General of California
Read More
By Allen Payton
According to East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD) Battalion Chief Craig Auzenne, a 22-year-old woman was injured in a Delta jet ski accident Monday afternoon about 3:25 p.m. near 5022 Sandmound Blvd. in Oakley.
Oakley PD secured the helispot at the intersection of East Summer Lake Drive and East Cypress Road. Medical helicopter ConAir1 transported the victim who had major injuries to John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek.
The possible cause of the accident is listed as inexperienced operator.
Read More
Photo by ECCFPD.
From East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Byron: On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 5:04 am East Contra Costa Fire Protection personnel from companies E59, E52 and BC5 were called for a vehicle that sheered a power pole and started a grass fire on Byron Hwy and Bruns Road near the Alameda County line. The driver was uninjured, but power lines were down and caused delays both ways on the roadway.
Read More
Photos by Pittsburg PD.
By Pittsburg Police Department
Sunday night, May 24, 2020, Pittsburg Police officers were patrolling the city like always and came across a car driving recklessly in the area of Rose Ann Avenue and W 17th Street. The driver saw police and decided to flee the area and threw a full auto sub machine gun out the window.
The driver lost control on Power Avenue and crashed into several apartments at the Belmont Apartments. The driver was transported to the hospital and later transported to our county jail. Luckily there were no major injuries.
Please continue to let us know if you see any reckless drivers. #PPD #ConFire #AMR #FullAuto – 374 @Pittsburg, California.
Read MoreLimited to 25% of capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees whichever is lower; requires county health officer’s approval
By Allen Payton
In response to pressure from President Trump and U.S. Attorney General Barr, last week, and under pressure from a variety of churches and religious groups suing the state, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued guidelines, today, Monday, May 25, 2020, for reopening places of worship, providers of religious services and cultural ceremonies. https://covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-places-of-worship.pdf
However, the guidelines require approval of the county health officer but will have little or no benefit for most churches, as they limit attendance to just 25% of building capacity or 100 attendees maximum whichever is less.
The guidelines were issued “to support a safe, clean environment for employees, interns and trainees, volunteers, scholars, and all other types of workers (referred to collectively as “staff”) as well as congregants, worshippers, visitors, etc. (referred to collectively as “visitors” or ‘congregants’).
This guidance does not obligate places of worship to resume in-person activity. Further, it is strongly recommended that places of worship continue to facilitate remote services and other related activities for those who are vulnerable to COVID19 including older adults and those with co-morbidities. Even with adherence to physical distancing, convening in a congregational setting of multiple different households to practice a personal faith carries a relatively higher risk for widespread transmission of the COVID-19 virus, and may result in increased rates of infection, hospitalization, and death, especially among more vulnerable populations. In particular, activities such as singing, and group recitation negate the risk-reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing.
Places of worship must therefore limit attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower. This limitation will be in effect for the first 21-days of a county public health department’s approval of religious services and cultural ceremonies activities at places of worship within their jurisdictions.
Upon 21-days, the California Department of Public Health, in consultation with county Departments of Public Health, will review and assess the impact of these imposed limits on public health and provide further direction as part of a phased-in restoration of activities in places of worship.”
Among other things, the guidelines also require places of worship to “Perform thorough cleaning of high traffic areas such as lobbies, halls, chapels, meeting rooms, offices, libraries, and study areas and areas of ingress and egress including stairways, stairwells, handrails, and elevator controls. Frequently disinfect commonly used surfaces including doorknobs, toilets, handwashing facilities, pulpits and podiums, donation boxes or plates, altars, and pews and seating areas.”
Efforts were made to the county health spokesperson asking for comment from County Health Officer Dr. Chris Farnitano on the guidelines and how soon places of worship in Contra Costa can expect to reopen. Please check back later for updates to this report.
Read More
By Walnut Creek Chief of Police Thomas Chaplin
Suspect Description: Both suspects are described as adult males with dark skin. Both suspects had on masks that covered their faces. Vehicle Description: Light colored sedan
The Walnut Creek Police Department is asking for the public’s help in identifying two suspects involved in a shooting that occurred in the 1200 block of Newell Avenue. On Thursday, May 21, 2020, at approximately 6:23 p.m., Walnut Creek Police Officers responded to the report of gunshots heard in the area of the 1200 block of Newell Avenue. Officers arrived on scene and located bullet casings, shattered glass and drops of blood in the area.
At approximately 6:36 p.m., officers learned that two adult males were transported to local hospitals for gunshot wounds related to this incident. Both males sustained non-life-threatening injuries and are in stable condition. Further investigation revealed that this incident occurred in the parking lot of a business. Officers located video surveillance of the parking lot, which showed two suspects armed with handguns approach the passenger side of a parked vehicle. At the time of the incident, one victim was seated in the passenger side of the parked vehicle. The suspects, who were wearing face masks, immediately shot at the victim. The victim was struck at least one time. The driver of the parked vehicle, 27-year-old Detroit, Michigan resident John Rankin (born 9/28/1992), returned fire at the two suspects and struck an innocent bystander, who was seated in a nearby vehicle. The shots fired by Rankin also struck a second vehicle that was parked in the parking lot. The suspects fled the scene in an unknown make and model vehicle. At this time, the suspects have not been identified.
As a result of the investigation, Rankin was arrested for Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Shooting into an Inhabited Vehicle.
Walnut Creek PD released the surveillance video. At this time, a motive for the shooting has not been determined. If anyone has information regarding this incident, please call Detective Leonard at 925-256-3523. WCPD Case Number: 20-13675
Read More
Suspect Hannah Nichols. Photo by Concord PD.
By Concord Police Department
With more people staying indoors, opportunities for residential burglaries have decreased. However, that didn’t stop this young lady from trying….
Wednesday morning, May 20, 2020, a few minutes before 6:00 a.m., a resident who lives off of San Simeon Drive, went outside and saw a woman trying to break into her garage. Just before calling the police, the homeowner confronted the woman who fled on foot.
Concord Officers quickly responded to the scene and detained a woman a few blocks away who matched the description of the suspect. The woman was identified as 24-year-old, Hannah Nichols, who also happened to be on felony probation for burglary. The witness positively identified Ms. Nichols as being the woman trying to break into her garage. Additionally, it was determined Ms. Nichols drove to area in a vehicle that was stolen in Concord the previous night.
We want to thank the community member for calling and providing us with a detailed description of the suspect. Also, we want to let you know that despite the Zero-Bail Order, we will continue to respond, investigate, and do everything we possibly can to make sure people who commit crimes in our city are held accountable for their actions. ~454
#stolenvehicle #burglary #concordpd
Read More
Screenshot of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors’ online meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 2020.
County Health Services using Remdesivir for COVID-19 patients; get glimpse of COVID-19 era libraries
By Daniel Borsuk
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors discussed possibly placing a half-cent sales tax measure to fund health and social services on the November ballot and approved hiring a pollster on a split vote. The tax measure would be in addition to a proposed Bay Area-wide half-cent sales tax measure for transportation expected to be on the November ballot, as well.
Approve Hiring Pollster for Half Cent Sales Tax Study
In response to the Contra Costa Needs Assessment from the county’s Sales Tax Working Group a countywide half-cent sales tax is being proposed “to shore up access to medical and behavioral health services, and bolster county safety-net programs.” BOS 052620 Contra Costa Needs Assessment
At least for now, it is uncertain if the board will move forward with a sales tax increase measure for the November ballot. Supervisors voted 4-1, with Board Chair Candace Andersen casting the lone, dissenting vote, to spend as much as $60,000 to hire a pollster to test whether voters would support one. But since the outbreak of COVID-19, public support for such a tax measure might have waned.
“We need further direction and getting results from a poll will help,” said Supervisor Karen Mitchoff. “Before COVID, support for a tax increase was optimistic, but with COVID it might be different.”
District 1 Supervisor John Gioia, a big booster of a sales tax increase, said it would cost $30,000 to $40,000 to poll 600,000 to 800,000 prospective voters. Mitchoff said a more realistic cost is $60,000.
Both Gioia and Mitchoff serve on the Potential Sales Tax Measure Ad Hoc Committee.
“Right now, is not the time to spend county funds for a poll,” said chair Andersen of Danville.
Extend Temporary Ban on Evictions and Residential Rent Increase Moratorium
With the supervisors’ month-old ordinance that imposed a temporary ban on evictions and a residential rent increase moratorium at the end of May, supervisors acted to extend the ordinance through July 15. Supervisors also imposed a one-year grace period and defined a commercial real property eligible for the ordinance “…as an independently owned and operated business that is not dominate in its field of operation, has its principal office in California, has 100 or fewer employees, and has average annual gross receipts of $15 million or less over the previous three years.”
Figuring the economy will not recover quickly to restore jobs, some speakers asked supervisors to extend the rent increase moratorium one year.
“Keep pace with Alameda County,” said Dick Offerman of Pleasant Hill. “See that no one is evicted in our county. Extend the moratorium one year.”
Mitchoff took time to warn landlords who are violating the county ordinance. “Landlords know about this ordinance. There are some bad actors who take advantage of people who speak English as a second language, this must stop,” she said.
County Health Uses Remdesivir for COVID-19 Patients
Contra Costa County Public Health Officer Dr. Christopher Farnitano informed supervisors that Contra Costa County Public Health has begun administering the anti-viral drug Remdesivir to COVID-19 patients. A total of 105 dosages were given last week, Dr. Farnitano said.
“The company that is making it (the drug) is giving this to the United States.” Dr. Farnitano said that the drug is “This drug is somewhat beneficial.”
Dr. Farnitano said there were as of Tuesday 13 COVID-19 patients in Contra Costa Medical Center, compared to 19 patients two weeks ago. Since the outbreak of the pandemic in March, 37 persons have died from COVID-19 in the county, four deaths occurred in the past week with one of the deaths in the person’s early 30’s, which is uncommon.
So far, the county is COVID-19 testing daily 95 people per 100,000 residents when the daily goal should be 200 people per 100,000 residents.
This drew Supervisor Mitchoff to question the testing.
“We’re about halfway there,” she said. “I did not want to test, but now I want to test in order to get our numbers up.”
Board Vice Chair Supervisor Diane Burgis of Brentwood asked why the COVID-19 test takers at county sites have to wait for results as long as 10 days when persons at three state sites get results within five days.
Contra Costa County Health Department Director Anna Roth said the average turnaround for COVID-19 results is three to five days, but it could be up to 10 days.
Get Glimpse of COVID-19 Era Libraries
took a glimpse of what the COVID-19 era might look like on Tuesday visualizing the 26 public libraries could offer some type of front door service for patrons to pick up checked out books in bags and when libraries do open doors possibly on June 15 seating capacity will be reduced 20 percent at each location right when outdoor temperatures are peaking above 100 degrees and libraries often serve as cooling centers for the public.
Supervisors unanimously approved the Contra Costa County Library Pandemic Preparedness Plan presented by County Librarian Melinda Cervantes that promotes hygiene, social distancing, and reduced seating. BOS 052620 CCCL Pandemic Preparedness Plan Draft Final
“We plan to begin service as soon as possible,” Cervantes told supervisors during the teleconferenced board meeting.
During the presentation, supervisors learned 36 library accounting positions might be eliminated because of COVID-19 related revenue losses. The potential loss of the library jobs will undermine library book purchasing.
“We need to get through the state budget,” responded county administrator David Twa, who said the 36 library accounting jobs are “potential job layoffs” and are subject to the meet and confer process. The state budget will be unveiled in mid-June.
Approve Purchase of DA’s Office Mobile Forensic Vehicle
In other action, the supervisors approved the District Attorney’s Office request to execute an agreement with the City of San Jose for the expenditure of up to $200,000 to procure a mobile forensic vehicle for the Silicon Valley Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. The vehicle is expected to cost $48,285.
Read MorePhoto from HSR.ca.gov.
Sacramento – Earlier today, Wednesday, May 27, 2020, the Assembly Transportation Committee Chaired by Assemblymember Jim Frazier (D- Fairfield) held an oversight hearing on the California High Speed Rail Authority’s (HSRA) 2020 Draft Business Plan. The HSRA is required to adopt and submit a final business plan to the Legislature on May 1st every two years that details funding, financing and ridership estimates for the entire project.
Since the Legislature first envisioned high-speed rail in the state in 1996 and residents first voted on Prop 1A in 2008 to help fund the project, the general idea for how the state would accomplish this has largely remained the same. The actual business plan authored by the Authority however has been riddled with issues and come under increased scrutiny from the Legislature as costs and deadlines have ballooned while reports of dysfunction and organizational chaos have become widespread.
From CA HSR 2020 Draft Business Plan.
“Once again, it seems the High-Speed Rail Authority has released in the 2020 Draft Business Plan a proposal for its future that it can’t afford and that won’t deliver what is promised. Every version of the Business Plan has increased costs and reduced scope and no longer resembles the vision promised in the 2008 ballot measure’’, said Assemblymember Frazier. “Despite efforts by myself and some of my colleagues, the Authority continues to propose electrifying a segment of a train line in the Central Valley that will add billions of dollars to the project and provide little or no benefit.”
“I believe there is a way to rescue this project from failure, but I think it requires honest evaluation and true cost-benefit analysis, neither of which the Authority has ever been able to provide”, continued Frazier. “Every iteration of the business plan comes with new promises without results. It is going to take a lot of explanation for me to believe that, this time, the Authority’s cost and ridership estimates are legitimate, and this is something the state should continue to invest in.”
Development of high-speed rail in California began more than 20 years ago. SB 1420 (Kopp), Chapter 796, Statutes of 1996, created HSRA to direct development and implementation of intercity high-speed rail service that would be fully coordinated with other public transportation services.
For more information on this legislation or to learn more about Assemblymember Frazier, please visit his website.
Assemblymember Frazier represents the 11th Assembly District, which includes the communities of Antioch, Bethel Island, Birds Landing, Brentwood, Byron, Collinsville, Discovery Bay, Fairfield, Isleton, Knightsen, Locke, Oakley, Pittsburg (partial), Rio Vista, Suisun City, Travis AFB, Vacaville and Walnut Grove.
Read MoreSome churches to participate in civil disobedience this Sunday and open for services.
“Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights”… “the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship” – 5/19/20 US DOJ letter to Gov. Newsom.
By Allen Payton
Yesterday, Monday, May 25, 2020 – Memorial Day, the day we honor and commemorate those who died for our freedoms, some of which are seriously limited, right now – California Governor Gavin Newsom issued guidelines for reopening places of worship. At first, I was hopeful that he was doing something good in response to President Trump’s directive to all the governors and the directive to California from U.S. Attorney General William Barr and the Department of Justice, last week.
But the guidelines don’t really allow most places of worship to reopen. Why? Because they’re too restrictive, limiting attendance to just 25% of building capacity or 100 people whichever is less. Plus, Newsom is leaving it up to each unelected county health officer to approve of the guidelines or not.
Now, it’s worse because they’re allowing more and more businesses to reopen – which is great – but not the churches. Our officials already considered all the vice serving businesses, including all the locations of the nation’s top abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, liquor stores, and marijuana dispensaries essential. But not the churches or other places of worship. And as of today, the governor said barber shops and hair salons can reopen.
Which part of “shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise” of religion and the other First Amendment right of freedom of peaceful assembly, don’t our officials get?
Civil Disobedience
Following in the footsteps of the black Christian ministers who led the efforts during the civil rights movement, it appears some churches will be participating in some civil disobedience with the ministers leading the effort for their rights, when they hold services this next Sunday, May 31st in defiance of state and local orders. Those in attendance will probably only be issued citations and the maximum fine is $1,000, which they can collectively fight. Plus, with $0 bail, right now none of them will go to jail. Most likely only the ministers will be cited and fined. But who knows? The Lord does and we will see just how far the government officials will take this and just how much they want to continue this fight.
Time to Elect New Leaders
It’s definitely time we elected only those who agree that places of worship are essential, not only to those who attend, but society as a whole, and will actually uphold their oaths of office, in which they swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Event the CDC recognized that in the statement for its Interim Guidance for Communities of Faith, unlike our governor in the statement included with his guidelines. The CDC wrote, “Millions of Americans embrace worship as an essential part of life. In addition, we note that while many types of gatherings are important for civic and economic well-being, religious worship has particularly profound significance to communities and individuals, including as a right protected by the First Amendment. State and local authorities are reminded to take this vital right into account when establishing their own re-opening plans.”
What did the governor include in the statement about his guidelines? Just more warnings about how public gatherings can cause more deaths. That statement includes, “There have been multiple outbreaks in a range of workplaces, indicating that workers are at risk of acquiring or transmitting COVID-19 infection. Examples of these workplaces include places of worship, long-term care facilities, prisons, food production, warehouses, meat processing plants, and grocery stores.”
“Further, it is strongly recommended that places of worship continue to facilitate remote services and other related activities for those who are vulnerable to COVID19 including older adults and those with co-morbidities. Even with adherence to physical distancing, convening in a congregational setting of multiple different households to practice a personal faith carries a relatively higher risk for widespread transmission of the COVID-19 virus, and may result in increased rates of infection, hospitalization, and death, especially among more vulnerable populations. In particular, activities such as singing and group recitation negate the risk-reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing,” Newsom’s statement continues.
Nothing about our First Amendment rights which should be protected or that corporate worship or even churches being essential to at least some Californians or society as a whole.
Support Legal Efforts
We also need to support the legal efforts of those suing the state and governor to get the courts to force him to allow the churches to reopen. One way you can do that is by supporting the Center for American Liberty, based in San Francisco and led by my friend, attorney Harmeet Dhillon and her fellow attorney, Mark Meuser, a former Contra Costa resident. Read about their cases and make a contribution, here – https://libertycenter.org/pf/covid-19-litigation/.
Another lawsuit by churches in California against Newsom and the state, which was joined by Dhillon, lost last week at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2-1 decision of a three-judge panel. Not surprising the judges who voted with the governor were appointed by Clinton and Obama, and the one judge that voted with the churches was appointed by Trump.
“These are emergency appeals,” Dhillon explained on Monday. “We filed for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court” in the recent case before the 9th Circuit.
“The DOJ sent a letter to the governor that his policies were discriminatory against churches,” she continued. “Today’s guidelines are still limiting. They’re totally arbitrary. There is no limit of 100 people for any retail establishment. Retail has a 50% capacity limit for some and none for others.”
“To tell people how they can worship, this is more unconstitutional and very problematic,” Dhillon added.
DOJ Letter to Newsom
In the DOJ letter to Newsom about “several civil rights concerns with the treatment of places of worship” due to the governor’s stay-at-home order, as well as “documents relating to the California Reopening Plan” it states “Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.” USDOJ 5.19.20 Ltr. to Hon. Gavin Newson
“Laws that do not treat religious activities equally with comparable nonreligious activities are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,” the letter continues.
“Places of worship are not permitted to hold religious worship services until Stage 3” of Newsom’s reopening plan, the letter explains. “However, in Stage 2, schools, restaurants, factories, offices, shopping malls, swap meets and others are permitted to operate with social distancing. And as noted, ecommerce and entertainment industry activities are already permitted with social distancing. This constitutes precisely the kind of differential treatment the Supreme Court identified” in the decision of another case “in which the government is not willing to impose on certain activities the same restrictions it is willing to impose on constitutionally protected religious worship.”
“Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other nonreligious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest…” the letter states.
It then refers to the recent case before the 9th Circuit and states, “Other decisions around the country…make clear that reopening plans cannot unfairly burden religious services as California has done.”
“We believe…that the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship, including in Stage 2 of the Reopening Plan.”
An email has been sent to the DOJ asking for their views on Newsom’s guidelines and if they comply with the May 19th letter. (Please check back later for updates to this column.)
Time for Action
It’s time for action and to stop living in fear, my friends. The governor’s guidelines are too restrictive and continue to clearly violate our God-given – the meaning of “unalienable” – and constitutionally protected rights of both freedom of religion and assembly. Until Newsom complies with the directives from the federal government, churches should feel free to reopen within the guidelines applied to nonreligious activities and businesses.
As the DOJ letter states, “Religious communities have rallied to protect their communities from the spread of this disease by making services available online, in parking lots, or outdoors, by indoor services with a majority of pews empty, and in numerous other creative ways that otherwise comply with social distancing and sanitation guidelines.” Local churches can do the same. We shall see if any actions are taken against the ministers and those who attend this Sunday’s services.
DOJ Letter to Governor Newsom
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530
May 19, 2020
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor of California
1303 10th Street, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Newsom:
We are writing to you to raise several civil rights concerns with the treatment of places of worship in Executive Orders N-33-20 and N-60-20 and documents relating to the California Reopening Plan.
Of course, we recognize the duty that you have to protect the health and safety of Californians in the face of a pandemic that is unprecedented in our lifetimes. You and other leaders around the country are called on to balance multiple competing interests and evaluate the constantly changing information available to you about COVID-19, and make your best judgment on courses of action.
Attorney General William P. Barr recently issued a statement on Religious Practice and Social Distancing, in conjunction with a Mississippi case in which the Department of Justice participated regarding restrictions on worship. In the statement, the Attorney General emphasized the need to practice social distancing to control the spread of COVID-19. He also noted that temporary restrictions that would be unacceptable in normal circumstances may be justified. But, “even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers. Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity.” Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
Laws that do not treat religious activities equally with comparable nonreligious activities are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). Laws that are not both neutral toward religion and generally applicable are invalid unless the government can prove that they further a compelling interest and are pursued through the least restrictive means possible. Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other nonreligious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest, absent the most compelling reasons.
Executive Order N-33-20 (March 19, 2020) ordered Californians to remain at home except to engage in authorized necessary activities as laid out by the Public Health Officer at the time and as modified going forward. The Public Health Officer’s April 28 “essential workforce” list does not appear to treat religious activities and comparable nonreligious activities the same.
The list includes “faith-based services” but only if “provided through streaming or other technologies.” In-person religious services are thus apparently prohibited even if they adhere to social distancing standards.
The list of nonreligious workers who are not so restricted by the Executive Order and essential workforce list when telework “is not practical” is expansive. For example, the list includes “Workers supporting the entertainment industries, studios, and other related establishments, provided they follow covid-19 public health guidance around social distancing.” Likewise, “workers supporting ecommerce” are included as essential, regardless of whether the product they are selling and shipping are life-preserving products or not. This facially discriminates against religious exercise. California has not shown why interactions in offices and studios of the entertainment industry, and in-person operations to facilitate nonessential ecommerce, are included on the list as being allowed with social distancing where telework is not practical, while gatherings with social distancing for purposes of religious worship are forbidden, regardless of whether remote worship is practical or not.
Even more pronounced unequal treatment of faith communities is evident in California’s Reopening Plan, as set forth in Executive Order N-60-20 (May 4, 2020), and in the documents the California Department of Public Health produced pursuant to it, including the “Resilience Roadmap” (https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap/) and “County Variance Attestations” (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Local-Variance-Attestations.aspx). Places of worship are not permitted to hold religious worship services until Stage 3. However, in Stage 2, schools, restaurants, factories, offices, shopping malls, swap meets, and others are permitted to operate with social distancing. And as noted, ecommerce and entertainment industry activities are already permitted with social distancing. This constitutes precisely the kind of differential treatment the Supreme Court identified in the Lukumi decision in which the government is not willing to impose on certain activities the same restrictions it is willing to impose on constitutionally protected religious worship. While it is true that social distancing requirements applied to places of worship may inevitably result in much smaller congregations than some faith groups would like, in our experience with other controversies around the country, many places of worship are quite content to operate at 15-25% of capacity in a way that allows for social distancing between family groups.
The Department of Justice does not seek to dictate how States such as California determine what degree of activity and personal interaction should be allowed to protect the safety of their citizens. However, we are charged with upholding the Constitution and federal statutory protections for civil rights. Whichever level of restrictions you adopt, these civil rights protections mandate equal treatment of persons and activities of a secular and religious nature.
We recognize that three U.S. District Courts have denied Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO’s) sought by plaintiffs against Executive Order N-33-20, Abiding Place Ministries v. Wooten, No. 3:20-cv-00683 (S.D. Cal. April 10, 2020) (no written opinion); Gish v. Newsom, No. 5:20-CV-755 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020); Cross Culture Christian Ctr. v. Newsom, No. 2:20-CV-00832 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2020), and one denied a TRO against the Reopening Plan, which is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, No. 3:20-cv-865 (S.D. Cal. May 15, 2020) (oral transcript ruling). These TRO decisions do not justify California’s actions. The Abiding Place, Gish, and Cross Culture TRO decisions do not address the Stage 2 reopening, and South Bay United Pentecostal does not describe why worship services can be distinguished from schools, restaurants, factories or other places Stage 2 permits people to come together. Other decisions around the country have followed Lukumi to make clear that reopening plans cannot unfairly burden religious services as California has done. See, e.g., Robert v. Neace, No. 20-5465 (6th Cir. May 11, 2020).
Religion and religious worship continue to be central to the lives of millions of Americans. This is true now more than ever. Religious communities have rallied to protect their communities from the spread of this disease by making services available online, in parking lots, or outdoors, by indoor services with a majority of pews empty, and in numerous other creative ways that otherwise comply with social distancing and sanitation guidelines. We believe, for the reasons outlined above, that the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship, including in Stage 2 of the Reopening Plan.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you wish to discuss further, please contact United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California McGregor Scott at (916) 554-2730 or mcgregor.scott@usdoj.gov.
Sincerely,
Eric S. Dreiband
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
McGregor W. Scott
United States Attorney
Eastern District of California
Nicola T. Hanna
United States Attorney
Central District of California
David L. Anderson
United States Attorney
Northern District of California
Robert S. Brewer
United States Attorney
Southern District of California
cc: The Honorable Xavier Becerra
Attorney General of California
Read MoreBy Allen Payton
According to East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD) Battalion Chief Craig Auzenne, a 22-year-old woman was injured in a Delta jet ski accident Monday afternoon about 3:25 p.m. near 5022 Sandmound Blvd. in Oakley.
Oakley PD secured the helispot at the intersection of East Summer Lake Drive and East Cypress Road. Medical helicopter ConAir1 transported the victim who had major injuries to John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek.
The possible cause of the accident is listed as inexperienced operator.
Read MorePhoto by ECCFPD.
From East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Byron: On Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 5:04 am East Contra Costa Fire Protection personnel from companies E59, E52 and BC5 were called for a vehicle that sheered a power pole and started a grass fire on Byron Hwy and Bruns Road near the Alameda County line. The driver was uninjured, but power lines were down and caused delays both ways on the roadway.
Read MorePhotos by Pittsburg PD.
By Pittsburg Police Department
Sunday night, May 24, 2020, Pittsburg Police officers were patrolling the city like always and came across a car driving recklessly in the area of Rose Ann Avenue and W 17th Street. The driver saw police and decided to flee the area and threw a full auto sub machine gun out the window.
The driver lost control on Power Avenue and crashed into several apartments at the Belmont Apartments. The driver was transported to the hospital and later transported to our county jail. Luckily there were no major injuries.
Please continue to let us know if you see any reckless drivers. #PPD #ConFire #AMR #FullAuto – 374 @Pittsburg, California.
Read MoreLimited to 25% of capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees whichever is lower; requires county health officer’s approval
By Allen Payton
In response to pressure from President Trump and U.S. Attorney General Barr, last week, and under pressure from a variety of churches and religious groups suing the state, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued guidelines, today, Monday, May 25, 2020, for reopening places of worship, providers of religious services and cultural ceremonies. https://covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-places-of-worship.pdf
However, the guidelines require approval of the county health officer but will have little or no benefit for most churches, as they limit attendance to just 25% of building capacity or 100 attendees maximum whichever is less.
The guidelines were issued “to support a safe, clean environment for employees, interns and trainees, volunteers, scholars, and all other types of workers (referred to collectively as “staff”) as well as congregants, worshippers, visitors, etc. (referred to collectively as “visitors” or ‘congregants’).
This guidance does not obligate places of worship to resume in-person activity. Further, it is strongly recommended that places of worship continue to facilitate remote services and other related activities for those who are vulnerable to COVID19 including older adults and those with co-morbidities. Even with adherence to physical distancing, convening in a congregational setting of multiple different households to practice a personal faith carries a relatively higher risk for widespread transmission of the COVID-19 virus, and may result in increased rates of infection, hospitalization, and death, especially among more vulnerable populations. In particular, activities such as singing, and group recitation negate the risk-reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing.
Places of worship must therefore limit attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower. This limitation will be in effect for the first 21-days of a county public health department’s approval of religious services and cultural ceremonies activities at places of worship within their jurisdictions.
Upon 21-days, the California Department of Public Health, in consultation with county Departments of Public Health, will review and assess the impact of these imposed limits on public health and provide further direction as part of a phased-in restoration of activities in places of worship.”
Among other things, the guidelines also require places of worship to “Perform thorough cleaning of high traffic areas such as lobbies, halls, chapels, meeting rooms, offices, libraries, and study areas and areas of ingress and egress including stairways, stairwells, handrails, and elevator controls. Frequently disinfect commonly used surfaces including doorknobs, toilets, handwashing facilities, pulpits and podiums, donation boxes or plates, altars, and pews and seating areas.”
Efforts were made to the county health spokesperson asking for comment from County Health Officer Dr. Chris Farnitano on the guidelines and how soon places of worship in Contra Costa can expect to reopen. Please check back later for updates to this report.
Read MoreBy Walnut Creek Chief of Police Thomas Chaplin
Suspect Description: Both suspects are described as adult males with dark skin. Both suspects had on masks that covered their faces. Vehicle Description: Light colored sedan
The Walnut Creek Police Department is asking for the public’s help in identifying two suspects involved in a shooting that occurred in the 1200 block of Newell Avenue. On Thursday, May 21, 2020, at approximately 6:23 p.m., Walnut Creek Police Officers responded to the report of gunshots heard in the area of the 1200 block of Newell Avenue. Officers arrived on scene and located bullet casings, shattered glass and drops of blood in the area.
At approximately 6:36 p.m., officers learned that two adult males were transported to local hospitals for gunshot wounds related to this incident. Both males sustained non-life-threatening injuries and are in stable condition. Further investigation revealed that this incident occurred in the parking lot of a business. Officers located video surveillance of the parking lot, which showed two suspects armed with handguns approach the passenger side of a parked vehicle. At the time of the incident, one victim was seated in the passenger side of the parked vehicle. The suspects, who were wearing face masks, immediately shot at the victim. The victim was struck at least one time. The driver of the parked vehicle, 27-year-old Detroit, Michigan resident John Rankin (born 9/28/1992), returned fire at the two suspects and struck an innocent bystander, who was seated in a nearby vehicle. The shots fired by Rankin also struck a second vehicle that was parked in the parking lot. The suspects fled the scene in an unknown make and model vehicle. At this time, the suspects have not been identified.
As a result of the investigation, Rankin was arrested for Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Shooting into an Inhabited Vehicle.
Walnut Creek PD released the surveillance video. At this time, a motive for the shooting has not been determined. If anyone has information regarding this incident, please call Detective Leonard at 925-256-3523. WCPD Case Number: 20-13675
Read MoreSuspect Hannah Nichols. Photo by Concord PD.
By Concord Police Department
With more people staying indoors, opportunities for residential burglaries have decreased. However, that didn’t stop this young lady from trying….
Wednesday morning, May 20, 2020, a few minutes before 6:00 a.m., a resident who lives off of San Simeon Drive, went outside and saw a woman trying to break into her garage. Just before calling the police, the homeowner confronted the woman who fled on foot.
Concord Officers quickly responded to the scene and detained a woman a few blocks away who matched the description of the suspect. The woman was identified as 24-year-old, Hannah Nichols, who also happened to be on felony probation for burglary. The witness positively identified Ms. Nichols as being the woman trying to break into her garage. Additionally, it was determined Ms. Nichols drove to area in a vehicle that was stolen in Concord the previous night.
We want to thank the community member for calling and providing us with a detailed description of the suspect. Also, we want to let you know that despite the Zero-Bail Order, we will continue to respond, investigate, and do everything we possibly can to make sure people who commit crimes in our city are held accountable for their actions. ~454
#stolenvehicle #burglary #concordpd
Read More