• Home
  • About The Herald
  • Local Agencies
  • Daily Email Update
  • Legal Notices
  • Classified Ads

Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

  • Arts & Entertainment
  • Business
  • Community
  • Crime
  • Dining
  • Education
  • Faith
  • Health
  • News
  • Politics & Elections
  • Real Estate

Opinion: Birth certificate lies? New CA Bill Lets Minors Rewrite Reality—Without Parental Consent

May 28, 2025 By Publisher Leave a Comment

By Greg Burt, VP, California Family Council

SACRAMENTO, CA — The California legislature continues to disregard the rights of parents and ignore their religious beliefs regarding their children with the introduction of AB 1084, a bill that expedites the process for changing a person’s name and sex on official documents—including birth certificates and marriage licenses—based on “gender identity” rather than biological reality.

While author Assemblyman Rick Zbur (D-Beverly Hills) says the bill is a necessary response to efforts making it “harder for transgender people to live safely and openly as their authentic selves,” it is in fact a profound assault on both truth and parental rights. AB 1084 is not just another procedural update. “Not only does it further legitimize the false idea that sex is a choice,” said Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council. “But it’s designed to sideline the very people God has charged with the care and guidance of children: their parents.”

Biological Reality Can’t Be Legislated Away

A person cannot change their sex. Sex is not “assigned at birth”—it is observed and recorded. It is an immutable, biological reality encoded in every cell of our bodies. It is not up for revision with a court order or a fill-in-the-blank on a government form.

But AB 1084 expedites this legal fiction, compelling courts to issue approval for name and sex changes to reflect not biological sex, but subjective gender identity within two weeks.

The Real Target: Parental Authority

While the entire premise of the bill is flawed, its most egregious offense is against parents.

AB 1084 claims to honor parental rights by requiring both living parents to approve a minor’s request to change their name and sex on legal documents. But this is a bait and switch. If one parent objects, the court will only consider the objection valid if it demonstrates “good cause.” And what is explicitly not good cause? Belief in biological sex.

You read that right. Under AB 1084, a court must disregard a parent’s objection if it is based on the belief that their child’s proposed gender identity does not align with their biological sex. In other words, if you believe—scientifically, morally, or religiously—that sex is binary and unchangeable, your views are disqualified from legal consideration.
Here is how the text of the bill explains it: “(D) A hearing date shall not be set in the proceeding unless an objection is timely filed and shows good cause for opposing the name change. Objections based solely on concerns that the proposed change is not the petitioner’s actual gender identity or gender assigned at birth shall not constitute good cause.”

This isn’t just bad policy. It’s discriminatory, unconstitutional, and tyrannical.

A Constitutional Crisis

The U.S. Supreme Court has long upheld the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the Court declared: “The child is not the mere creature of the state.” And in Troxel v. Granville (2000), the Court reaffirmed that “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children… is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.”

Yet AB 1084 places the state as arbiter of a child’s identity over and above the rights of parents. It effectively says: “Parents, you can raise your child—unless your views clash with state-endorsed gender ideology.”

This is an ideological test for parental rights. And it must be resisted.

A Slippery and Dangerous Precedent

Once the state arrogates to itself the power to nullify parental objections rooted in deeply held religious or biological convictions, where does it stop?

  • Will it override a parent’s objection to irreversible medical procedures?
  • Will it compel schools to keep secrets from parents about their children’s gender identity?
  • Will it use the denial of “affirmation” as grounds to remove children from their homes

A False Solution to Real Pain

The advocates of AB 1084 claim that this bill is about protecting transgender and nonbinary individuals from discrimination. But true compassion never requires us to lie. A government that redefines reality to affirm feelings is not protecting anyone—it’s merely swapping one kind of harm for another.

Children, especially minors struggling with gender confusion, need truth, not affirmation of delusion. They need wise, loving guidance—especially from parents, not judges. By empowering minors to legally alter their identity with minimal pushback, California encourages life-altering decisions without adequate reflection or maturity.

 

And these changes are not harmless. Once legal documents are changed, it can set off a domino effect leading to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and irreversible surgeries—often before a child’s brain is even fully developed.

What Must Be Done

California Family Council stands firmly opposed to AB 1084 and any law that undermines biological truth and parental authority. We urge the legislature to reject this bill and call on citizens to raise their voices in protest.

We are also calling on constitutional lawyers and religious liberty advocates to prepare challenges to this legislation should it pass. It will not stand the test of judicial scrutiny—and it certainly will not stand the test of time.

Bill Status

This bill has already passed the Assembly Judiciary and Health Committees and now sits in the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File.  On May 23 the committee will announce its decision on whether the bill progresses to the full Assembly for a vote.

About California Family Council

California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.

 

Filed Under: Children & Families, Education, Legislation, News, Opinion, State of California

2025 Greater Bay Area DA Summit convenes in Lafayette to address AI, Prop 36, retail theft

May 19, 2025 By Publisher Leave a Comment

2025 Greater Bay Area District Attorney Summit attendees. Source: Diana Becton for District Attorney

Elected District Attorneys and senior prosecutors from across the Bay, Northern California

By Bobbi Mauler, Executive Assistant, Contra Costa District Attorney

Area and beyond gathered in Contra Costa County for the 2025 Greater Bay Area DA Summit. The all-day, invitational summit brought together leaders to collaborate on legal strategies and share innovations that address some of the most urgent challenges facing the criminal justice system. Now in its third year, the summit has become a critical regional forum since its inception in Santa Clara County in 2022 and continuing in Napa County in 2023. The 2025 summit took place on May 16th at the Veterans Memorial Center in Lafayette.

Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton opened the summit with welcoming remarks that set the tone for the day’s discussions. In her address, DA Becton emphasized the importance of cross-jurisdictional partnerships and proactive approaches to public safety:

“The Greater Bay Area Summit has proven itself to be a constructive gathering where elected DAs from the Bay Area and beyond can share ideas, engage in robust discussions, and find practical solutions to increase public safety in the communities we serve. By coming together, we strengthen our collective ability to adapt to emerging technologies and respond to evolving criminal trends.”

Following her remarks, a series of expert-led panels explored timely and complex topics, including:

  • The Use of Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technology in Criminal Prosecution
  • Proposition 36 Implementation
  • Emerging Challenges with Race-Blind Charging
  • Legal Strategies in Combating Organized Retail Theft

Under District Attorney Becton’s leadership, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office

has remained at the forefront of innovation, equity, and public safety. Hosting the summit further

reinforced her office’s role as a convener on issues that demand both legal insight and community engagement.

The 2025 Greater Bay Area District Attorney’s Summit was attended by the elected District Attorneys from the following counties:

Diana Becton, District Attorney of Contra Costa County

Lori Frugoli, District Attorney of Marin County

Ron Freitas, District Attorney of San Joaquin County

Allison Haley, District Attorney of Napa County

Thien Ho, District Attorney of Sacramento County

Brooke Jenkins, District Attorney of San Francisco County

Ursula Jones Dickson, District Attorney of Alameda County

Jeannine Pacioni, District Attorney of Monterey County

Jeff Reisig, District Attorney of Yolo County

Carla Rodriguez, District Attorney of Sonoma County

Jeffrey Rosen, District Attorney of Santa Clara County

Steve Wagstaffe, District Attorney of San Mateo County

In a post on her campaign Facebook page, Becton wrote about the Summit, “What an exciting day! I was honored to invite and host 12 elected Distrist Attorneys and senior prosecutors from across the Bay Area and beyond as we gathered in Contra Costa County for the 2025 Greater Bay Area DA Summit.

The all-day, invitational summit brought together leaders to collaborate on legal strategies and share innovations that address some of the most urgent challenges facing the criminal justice system.”

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Filed Under: Bay Area, Crime, District Attorney, Legislation, News

CA proposes forcing LGBTQ advocacy on every student ID – no exemptions for religious schools

March 6, 2025 By Publisher Leave a Comment

By California Family Council

SACRAMENTO, CA — A new bill introduced by Assemblyman Mark González, a member of the California LGBTQ Caucus, is poised to impose LGBTQ advocacy on every public and private school in the state. Assembly Bill 727 mandates that all 7-12 schools—both public and private—as well as public and private universities print the contact information of an LGBTQ advocacy organization, the Trevor Project, on every student identification card. Most concerningly, the bill offers no exemptions for religious schools that hold faith-based objections to the ideological positions promoted by this private organization.

AB 727: A Mandate That Violates Religious Freedom
The Trevor Project is one of the most well-known, influential, and well-funded LGBTQ advocacy groups in the country. According to its website, its mission is “ending suicide among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ+) young people.” The organization not only provides 24-hour, seven-days-a-week crisis hotline and chat support, but also provides peer support that connects minors ages 13-17 with adults 18 to 23, education curriculum and teacher training, as well as pushing public policies and research that promote LGBTQ ideology as the answer to troubled teens.

The text of the bill reads:
(4) Commencing July 1, 2026, a public school, including a charter school, or a private school that serves pupils in any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, and that issues pupil identification cards shall have printed on either side of the pupil identification cards The Trevor Project’s 24 hours per day, 7 days per week suicide hotline that is available through both of the following options:
(A) Telephone number: 1-866-488-7386.
(B) Text line, which can be accessed by texting START to 678-678.

While no one wants to see a child struggle with bullying, depression, and suicidal thoughts, many family-oriented faith-based groups do not want students pushed further toward a transgender identity or encouraged to embrace same-sex desires and sexual behaviors, which only results in further despair and long-term harm.

Under the guise of suicide prevention, this bill would compel Christian and religious schools to print the contact information of the Trevor Project on the back of student identification cards, even though this organization promotes beliefs contrary to their deeply held faith. This is a direct violation of First Amendment rights and an egregious overreach of government authority into the affairs of religious institutions.

The Trevor Project’s Troubling Track Record
The California Family Council (CFC) has extensively documented the dangers of the Trevor Project’s influence in schools. These concerns go beyond simple political or ideological disagreements—they touch on serious risks to children’s mental, emotional, and even physical well-being.

1. Role-Playing LGBTQ Scenarios in Schools
CFC has reported on how The Trevor Project has been used as an entryway to LGBTQ indoctrination in schools. Parents in Vista Unified School District (VUSD) were shocked to discover that students were required to participate in a role-playing exercise in which they had to “come out” as LGBTQ. This activity, known as Coming Out Stars, was taken directly from materials provided by The Trevor Project.

Students who objected due to religious beliefs were pressured to comply, and parents were not informed that such content was being introduced into their children’s education. CFC Vice President Greg Burt called out this coercion:

“The California Family Council stands with these parents in their fight for truth and transparency. Schools should be teaching kids math and reading, not coercing them into role-playing as LGBTQ+ individuals or pushing the false ideology that gender is fluid.”

2. Online Predator Risks on Trevor Space
Santa Ana Unified School board member and former teacher Brenda Lebsack investigated The Trevor Project’s online chatrooms and exposed alarming risks to minors. She found that their online platform, Trevor Space, connected vulnerable youth with unverified adults in private chatrooms under the guise of offering “support.”

Lebsack, posing as a child questioning her gender, was granted immediate access without age verification and directed to clubs promoting witchcraft, polyamory, and even age-regression kinks. This has led organizations like Gays Against Groomers to refer to Trevor Space as a “pedophile’s paradise.”
Despite these risks, The Trevor Project remains deeply embedded in California’s public education system, promoted by school counselors, the Attorney General, and even legislative bodies pushing LGBTQ policies.

3. Suicide Hotline on CA Student IDs Surveys Kids on Gender Identity
Another major concern is how suicide prevention hotlines have become tools for ideological indoctrination. In California, students as young as 7th grade already have suicide hotline numbers printed on their ID cards, and when they call for help, they are immediately asked about their gender identity.

Instead of focusing on providing genuine support for mental health struggles, hotline operators already push children toward gender identity exploration and funnel them into pro-LGBTQ organizations like The Trevor Project. This bill will bypass the supposedly objective counselors and connect students directly with Trevor Project advocates. This is not suicide prevention—it is grooming children into gender ideology.

A Direct Violation of President Trump’s Executive Order
This coercive government policy stands in direct opposition to President Trump’s recent Executive Order on Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling. The order specifically aims to eliminate: “Federal funding or support for illegal and discriminatory treatment and indoctrination in K-12 schools, including based on gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology.”

AB 727 contradicts this order by mandating schools to promote LGBTQ advocacy, even against their religious convictions. If allowed to stand, this bill could set a dangerous precedent—paving the way for further government-mandated ideological messaging in private religious institutions.

“We Must Protect These Vulnerable Kids”
Greg Burt, Vice President of California Family Council, has strongly condemned this legislation: “No child should experience bullying, but The Trevor Project takes advantage of troubled and vulnerable youth who need our compassion and help, and leads them down a path that will destroy their futures. These struggling kids are being offered lies about their true God-given identity as a boy or a girl and told to let their sexual desires determine their identity and behavior. That’s not the answer to depression and suicidal thoughts—it’s a path toward deeper confusion and despair.”

Students experiencing distress deserve real help, not further indoctrination into a harmful and misleading worldview.

About California Family Council
California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.

Filed Under: Children & Families, Education, Legislation, News, State of California

Federal judge defends teachers right to say ‘no’ to California’s gender secrecy policy

January 15, 2025 By Publisher Leave a Comment

SACRAMENTO, CA — In a pivotal ruling for parental rights, U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez refused to dismiss a class-action lawsuit against California’s controversial policies requiring educators to keep parents uninformed when their children express gender confusion or request to change their names and pronouns at school. The decision, handed down on January 7, 2025, denies the motions filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the California Department of Education to throw out the case by arguing that gender secrecy policies were “just a suggestion,” and not mandated on school districts. Now the suit can move forward toward potentially overturning the state’s ban parent notification policies with the passage of AB 1955 last year.

Teachers Not Required to Keep Secrets from Parents
In a powerful statement addressing the rights of educators, Judge Benitez clarified that teachers are under no obligation to follow policies that compel them to deceive or withhold information from parents. Judge Benitez emphasized that “teachers do not completely forfeit their First Amendment rights in exchange for public school employment.” He noted that while teachers may be required to deliver specific curricula, the government cannot force them to act unlawfully or infringe on parental rights. Benitez agreed with the plaintiffs that state policies compel them to act in ways that are “intentionally deceptive and unlawful,” violating the teachers’ First Amendment rights.

Upholding Parents’ Constitutional Rights
Judge Benitez also emphasized long-standing constitutional protections for parents in the upbringing and health decisions of their children. “Parents’ rights to make decisions concerning the care, custody, control, and medical care of their children is one of the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests that Americans enjoy,” he wrote, rebuking the state’s argument that parents have no fundamental right to be informed of their child’s gender identity at school. “However, under California state policy and EUSD policy, if a school student expresses words or actions during class that are visible signs that the child is dealing with gender incongruity or possibly gender dysphoria, teachers are ordered not to inform the parents.”

Ultimately, the judge denied the state’s efforts to dismiss the case, stating, “There are no controlling decisions that would compel this Court to limit or infringe parental rights, notwithstanding the State’s laudable goals of protecting children.”

The ruling directly challenges California’s “Parental Exclusion Policies,” which have allowed schools to hide critical gender identity information from families under the guise of student privacy. Judge Benitez concluded that parents have a constitutional right to know about their child’s gender incongruity, especially when such conditions could lead to significant mental health issues like depression or suicidal ideation.

Broad Implications for State Policy
The lawsuit is now free to move forward, and if successful, it could dismantle policies statewide that currently compel educators to bypass parents on sensitive matters concerning gender identity. This would represent a significant victory for parental rights advocates who argue that these policies infringe on the fundamental rights of families and erode trust between parents and schools.

Legal Counsel Speaks Out
Paul Jonna, Special Counsel for the Thomas More Society, Partner LiMandri & Jonna LLP, and a lead attorney on the case, hailed the decision as a milestone moment for parental rights. “We are incredibly pleased that the Court has denied all attempts to throw out our landmark challenge to California’s parental exclusion and gender secrecy regime,” Jonna said in a press release. “Judge Benitez’s order rightly highlights the sacrosanct importance of parents’ rights in our constitutional order and the First Amendment protections afforded to parents and teachers.”

Jonna emphasized the broader goal of achieving statewide relief for all parents and teachers affected by the secrecy policies, adding, “We look forward to continuing to prosecute this case against California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the other defendants, to put this issue to rest once and for all—by obtaining class-wide relief on behalf of all teachers and parents.”

Reaction from California Family Council
Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council, praised the ruling for upholding parental rights. “This decision is a critical step toward restoring the sacred bond between parents and children,” Burt stated. “When government policies force schools to keep secrets from families, they cross a dangerous line. Judge Benitez’s ruling reaffirms that parental rights are not a secondary concern but a cornerstone of our constitutional freedoms.”

A Collision of Rights
Judge Benitez also addressed the tension between a child’s right to privacy and parents’ right to be informed. While acknowledging the competing interests, he concluded, “In a collision of rights as between parents and child, the long-recognized federal constitutional rights of parents must eclipse the state rights of the child.” This statement sets a clear precedent favoring parental oversight in matters of health and education.

Looking Ahead
As Mirabelli v. Olson proceeds, the case is likely to garner increased attention, setting the stage for a broader examination of how states balance student privacy with parental rights. The outcome could redefine policies across California and potentially influence similar debates nationwide.

About California Family Council
California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.

Filed Under: Children & Families, Education, Legal, Legislation, News, State of California

CHP highlights new laws for 2025

December 28, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Includes reckless driving & sideshow enforcement, electric bicycle safety, autonomous vehicles, retail theft, more

SACRAMENTO – As we head into the new year, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) is highlighting the new public safety laws that were passed during this year’s legislative session and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Unless otherwise noted, the laws referenced below take effect on January 1, 2025.

Tools to Address Reckless Driving and Sideshows:

Vehicles: Speed Contests (AB 1978, Sanchez)

Assembly Bill 1978 permits storing a vehicle when an individual is arrested but not taken into custody for obstructing or placing a barricade a highway or off-street parking facility for purposes of aiding a speed contest or exhibition of speed.

Vehicles: Impoundment (AB 2186, Wallis)

Assembly Bill 2186 permits the arrest and custody of individuals engaged in an exhibition of speed in an off-street parking facility. It also permits the impounding of the individual’s vehicle for not more than 30 days.

Vehicles: Sideshows and Street Takeovers (AB 2807, Villapudua)

Assembly Bill 2807 defines a “sideshow” and a “street takeover” as the same type of event.

Vehicles: Removal and Impoundment (AB 3085, Gipson)

Assembly Bill 3085 provides authority to seize and impound a vehicle with a warrant when the vehicle was used in violation of a speed contest or exhibition of speed (including aiding or abetting). This bill also permits electronic service of the notices of impoundment and storage hearings.

Emergency Alert Information Sharing:

Electronic Toll Collection Systems: Information Sharing: Law Enforcement (AB 2645, Lackey)

Assembly Bill 2645 allows transportation agencies operating electronic toll collection systems to share real-time license plate data with law enforcement during active emergency alerts, such as AMBER, Ebony, or Feather Alerts. This legislation eliminates the need for a search warrant in such situations, enabling quicker responses to locate suspect vehicles linked to emergencies, such as child abductions.

Electric Bicycle Safety:

Electric Bicycles, Powered Mobility Devices and Storage (SB 1271, Min)

Beginning January 1, 2026, SB 1271 focuses on improving the safety standards for electric bicycles (e-bikes), powered mobility devices, and related lithium-ion batteries. It requires these devices and their components, such as batteries and charging systems, to be tested by accredited laboratories to meet specific safety standards. The bill also mandates labeling these products to show compliance with safety regulations, ensuring consumers are informed. Furthermore, it prohibits distributing, selling, or leasing e-bikes and related equipment unless they meet these standards, aiming to reduce risks like fire hazards and electrical malfunctions. Beginning January 1, 2028, the bill would prohibit a person from renting or offering for rental an electric bicycle, powered mobility device, charging system, or storage battery unless it has been tested to the specified safety standard.

Vehicles: Electric Bicycles (AB 1774, Gipson)

Assembly Bill 1774 prohibits modifying an electric bicycle’s speed capability to an extent it no longer meets the definition of an electric bicycle.  Also, it prohibits selling a product or device that can modify the speed capability of an electric bicycle to an extent it no longer meets the definition of an electric bicycle.

Vehicles: Electric Bicycles (AB 1778, Connolly)

Assembly Bill 1778 authorizes a local authority within the County of Marin, or the County of Marin in unincorporated areas, to enact an ordinance or resolution prohibiting a person under 16 years of age from operating a class 2 electric bicycle or requiring a person operating a class 2 electric bicycle to wear a helmet.

Vehicles: Electric Bicycles (AB 2234, Boerner)

Assembly Bill 2234 establishes the San Diego Electric Bicycle Safety Program and authorizes a local authority within the County of San Diego, or the County of San Diego in unincorporated areas, to enact an ordinance or resolution prohibiting a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle.

Photo Enforced Speed Enforcement Pilot Program:

The City of Malibu’s Speed Safety System Pilot Program (SB 1297, Allen)

Senate Bill 1297 establishes a five-year Speed Safety System Pilot Program in the City of Malibu. The bill defines a ‘speed safety system’ as a fixed or mobile radar or laser system, or any other electronic device that utilizes automated equipment, to detect a violation of speed laws and obtains a clear photograph of a speeding vehicle’s license plate. The bill establishes mandates regarding policy, enforcement, implementation, public notification, and a system evaluation report.

Clean Air Vehicle Sticker Extension:

Vehicles: High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (AB 2678, Wallis)

Assembly Bill 2678 permits vehicles with a Clean Air Vehicle decal to drive in High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes until January 1, 2027, if federal law permits.

Autonomous Vehicles:

Vehicle Equipment: Driver Monitoring Defeat Devices (SB 1313, Ashby)

Senate Bill 1313 prohibits using, possessing, or selling devices designed to interfere with driver monitoring systems in vehicles equipped with advanced driver assistance systems or autonomous technology. These systems monitor driver alertness and help ensure safety when automated features are used. Violating this law is classified as an infraction. Exceptions are provided for manufacturers testing new technology, vehicle repairs, and updates compliant with safety standards or modifications for disability accommodations. This law aims to enhance road safety by preventing tampering with critical monitoring systems.

Autonomous Vehicles Interactions with First Responders and Traffic Violation Notices – AB 1777 (Ting)

Upon the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) adoption of necessary regulations, AB 1777 creates new authority for a law enforcement officer to issue a “notice of autonomous vehicle (AV) noncompliance” to an AV manufacturer for an alleged traffic violation committed by one of their vehicles.  Beginning July 1, 2026, AB 1777 establishes additional requirements for how AVs that operate without a human operator in the vehicle interact with first responders, including a requirement for manufacturers to provide a two-way device in the vehicles to communicate with first responders.

Pedestrian Safety Around Buses:

Transit buses: Yield Right-of-Way Sign (AB 1904, Ward)

Assembly Bill 1904 authorizes a transit agency to equip a transit bus with a “yield” right-of-way sign on the left rear of the bus.  The sign may be a static decal or a flashing light-emitting diode (LED).

License Plate Manipulation:

License Plates: Obstruction or Alteration (AB 2111, Wallis)

Assembly Bill 2111 prohibits any alteration of a license plate’s reflective coating to avoid detection from any entity, not just law enforcement.

Property Theft from a Vehicle:

Crimes: Theft from A Vehicle (SB 905, Wiener)

Senate Bill 905 creates the crime of Unlawful Entry of a Vehicle, which addresses unlawfully entering a vehicle with the intent to commit a theft or any felony. It also adds the crime of Automotive Property Theft for Resale, which addresses possessing stolen property obtained from a vehicle with the intent to sell or exchange the property for value. The property’s value must be over $950.00 and not for personal use. The value of property can be combined within two years of separate acts.

Combating Retail Theft:

Crimes: Organized Theft (SB 982, Wahab)

Senate Bill 982 makes the crime of organized retail theft permanent and strengthens measures to address retail crime. The bill eliminates the expiration date for specific provisions targeting organized retail theft, ensuring long-term tools for law enforcement to combat this issue.

Crimes: Fires (SB 1242, Min)

Senate Bill 1242 amends Penal Code Section 452 regarding the unlawful setting of fires. It updates penalties and legal language to clarify offenses, including circumstances involving organized retail theft.

Sentencing Enhancements: Sale, Exchange, Or Return of Stolen Property (SB 1416 Newman)

Senate Bill 1416 focuses on combating organized retail theft by increasing penalties for those involved in the resale of stolen goods, often referred to as “fencing.” The bill, until January 1, 2030, creates sentencing enhancements for individuals who sell, exchange, or return stolen property for value, particularly when the property exceeds specific thresholds. Punishment increases from one year to four years based on a property value scale ranging from $50,000 to over $3 million.

Theft: Jurisdiction (AB 1779, Irwin)

Assembly Bill 1779 addresses the issue of organized retail theft by streamlining the prosecution process. Specifically, it allows district attorneys to consolidate charges for theft offenses committed across multiple counties into a single trial, provided all affected county district attorneys agree.

Crimes: Organized Theft (AB 1802, Jones-Sawyer)

Assembly Bill 1802 ensures that the crime of organized retail theft remains permanently defined in state law and extends the CHP’s Property Crimes Task Force indefinitely. This bill eliminates the “sunset” clause that would have otherwise allowed the statute and the task force to expire.

Regional Property Crimes Task Force (AB 1972, Alanis)

Assembly Bill 1972 expands the scope of the CHP’s Regional Property Crimes Task Force to include cargo theft as a property crime for consideration and requires the task force to provide logistical and law enforcement support for railroad police.

This bill emphasizes cargo theft as a specific priority and aims to strengthen resources for law enforcement agencies to combat these issues. As an urgency statute, AB 1972 went into effect immediately upon its passage in August 2024 to address these concerns promptly.

Crimes: Shoplifting (AB 2943, Zbur)

Assembly Bill 2943, also called the “California Retail Theft Reduction Act,” strengthens measures to combat organized retail theft by creating a specific crime for serial retail theft, allowing the aggregation of property value for thefts committed within 90 days to qualify as grand theft. It empowers law enforcement to make arrests using video evidence or sworn statements, shields businesses from lawsuits for reporting crimes and promotes rehabilitation through diversion programs for minor offenders. The bill aims to dismantle theft rings while balancing public safety and criminal justice reforms.

Crimes: Theft: Retail Theft Restraining Orders (AB 3209, Berman)

Assembly Bill 3209 creates a retail crime restraining order.  A court may issue a restraining order when sentencing an individual for specific retail theft-related crimes, including vandalism of a retail store and assaulting a retail store employee.  The restraining order prohibits the individual from entering or being on the grounds of the establishment and may include parking lots adjacent to and used by the establishment.

The mission of the CHP is to provide the highest level of Safety, Service, and Security.

Filed Under: Business, CHP, Crime, Legislation, News, State of California, Transportation

California begins purge of Christian foster parents in response to new state law

December 17, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

SB 407 requires affirmation of a child’s chosen gender identity or sexual orientation

By Greg Burt, California Family Council

SACRAMENTO, CA — Christian foster parents with traditional, biblical beliefs on gender and sexuality are being systematically excluded from California’s foster care system due to the enforcement of SB 407. This new law, authored by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), mandates that foster parents, irrespective of whether they have an LGBTQ-identified child in their care, must affirm a child’s chosen gender identity or sexual orientation. Neutrality is no longer acceptable under the updated guidelines issued by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). (Read guidelines here: https://www.cdss.ca.gov/Portals/9/Additional-Resources/Letters-and-Notices/ACLs/2024/24-69.pdf?ver=2024-11-19-154231-617)

According to a letter distributed to all county and state-licensed foster care agencies last month, “Each resource family must have the capacity, ability, and willingness to safeguard a child’s or non-minor dependent’s personal rights and respect and honor the child’s identities regardless of their own values and beliefs.” The letter further asserts that any failure to affirm a child’s self-determined identity constitutes a “risk or threat” to the child’s health and safety. Consequently, this would result in the denial of foster care applications or the revocation of existing approvals.

This policy shift underscores a troubling development: the state now regards traditional views regarding gender and sexuality as harmful, not only to foster children, but to all children under the system’s care.

The California Family Council (CFC) recently received a call from a foster father who, along with his wife, had provided temporary care to multiple young children over several years. Despite their history of offering loving homes, their social worker denied the renewal of their foster care license because they could not commit to affirming any identity a child might choose. This was a marked departure from previous practices, where their beliefs were accommodated, and they were not assigned LGBTQ-identified children.

“Their social worker told them that under SB 407, the promise of affirmation is now a requirement for fostering any child, regardless of age,” said Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council.

Leading Christian legal organizations specializing in religious liberty cases have condemned the CDSS directive as unconstitutional. Kevin Snider, Chief Counsel for the Pacific Justice Institute, highlighted the broader ramifications of SB 407.

“The implications of SB 407 and the recent Directive from the Dept. of Social Services is that foster families holding religious or traditional views on gender and sexual orientation are unqualified to provide care for foster children,” Snider explained. “California parents may think, ‘This doesn’t concern me — I’m not a foster parent.’ In fact, it does concern you. There is now a very small step for the state to deem any parent as unfit to raise their own children if the family holds a view that contradicts the state’s ideology on gender and sexual orientation. This could result in a visit by Child Protective Services with tragic consequences for the home.”

Kelly Rickert, an attorney with Advocates for Faith and Freedom, emphasized the dire need for foster parents in California, particularly in Los Angeles County, which has over 25,000 foster children in care. She said, “For centuries, Christians have stepped up to care for these children.  But now, the State is stripping Christians who have previously provided years of care of their foster care licenses because they cannot in good conscience agree to promote the state’s onerous directives promoting LGBTQ+ ideologies.”

Rickert also pointed to legal precedents, such as Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021), “the Supreme Court struck down a Philadelphia policy denying contracts to a foster care agency because it would not certify same-sex couples as foster parents – because it violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause.” Rickert believes the CDSS directive is similarly unconstitutional. “It is heartbreaking that the State of California elevates political ideology over the welfare of children in need,” she said.

CFC Vice President Greg Burt expressed disappointment at how religious freedoms were disregard during the legislative process. The CFC consistently lobbied against SB 407, warning lawmakers of its illegality and its potential to alienate prospective foster parents. “California is already struggling with a foster parent shortage, yet Senator Wiener and his allies are driving away faithful families who provide stable, loving homes,” said Burt. “This law doesn’t just hurt foster children—it actively discriminates against foster parents who are willing to love and care for any child but refuse to compromise their deeply held religious beliefs.”

Check out similar cases of Christian discrimination related to foster care and adoption at the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3nKm8kESKs&t=2s excerpts from the SB 407 hearing above when the bill went before the CA Senate Human Services Committee. Watch the full hearing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDzrwfn0RwI

Filed Under: Children & Families, Legislation, News, State of California

State Superintendent Thurmond announces legislation to keep Immigration and Customs Enforcement off school campuses

December 16, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

CA State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and State Senator Lena Gonzalez want to keep U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents off California school campuses without a judicial warrant in their efforts to deport illegal immigrants.

Introduced by Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez

“to protect California schools from a drop-off in attendance or funding in response to federal threats of mass deportation.”

By Liz Sanders, Director of Communications, California Department of Education

SACRAMENTO—State Superintendent Tony Thurmond is sponsoring legislation introduced by Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-33) on Monday, December 16, aimed at keeping U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents off of school campuses to protect California schools from a drop-off in attendance or funding in response to federal threats of mass deportation.

The legislation to be introduced by Senator Gonzalez will protect California schools from a potential decline in attendance or funding during potential increased immigration enforcement by protecting school zones, as well as school data and sensitive family information.

The bill would:

  • prohibit school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and their personnel from granting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers or other federal authorities access to campuses without a judicial warrant;
  • prohibit police cooperation with any immigration enforcement efforts within a one-mile radius of school to ensure a safe corridor for parents to bring their children to and from school; and
  • prohibit the sharing of any information about students, families, their households, or school employees with ICE officers.

“This bill seeks to push back against threats of deportation that create fear in immigrant families. These practices suppress school attendance and rob schools of needed revenue,” said Thurmond. “I am honored to partner with bill author Senator Lena Gonzalez, other legislators, and immigrant rights groups to support our families and keep ICE off our school campuses—period.”

“All California children deserve safe school environments that prioritize student learning, regardless of immigration status,” said Gonzalez (D-Long Beach). “As Chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, I’m proud to be partnering with Superintendent Tony Thurmond to author this important legislation, which will prevent disruptions to student learning, keep children in school, and prevent families from being torn apart.”

Research has shown that immigration enforcement in the area of schools has a chilling effect on school attendance for students from impacted communities, regardless of students’ citizenship or immigration status. It is reasonable to expect such adverse impacts on immigrant communities throughout California.

The legislation would also strengthen safeguards against unauthorized disclosure of education records and personal information to federal agents. Combined, these protections would ensure that families are able to safely send their children to school without fear of being separated from their children, and families would also be able to fill out necessary school forms that are essential to students’ well-being and educational services without fear of being separated from their children.

In California, 93 percent of children who have one or more undocumented parents are U.S. citizens. Additionally, all children in the United States, regardless of immigration status, have a right to a free and appropriate public education.

The proposed bill reflects California’s commitment to ensure that pandemic-era increases in chronic absenteeism do not recur and also reiterates California’s commitment to make sure that schools are welcoming environments where all families can safely bring their children to learn. It aligns with California’s broader efforts to promote equity, inclusion, and the protection of immigrant communities.

As schools continue to face challenges related to student safety and data privacy, this bill sends a strong message that California is committed to safeguarding our students and families.

Filed Under: Education, Immigration, Legislation, News, State of California

U.S. Senate passes Padilla, Murkowski bill to reauthorize National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

December 5, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Senators Alex Padilla and Lisa Murkowski (official photos) and map of tsunami warning areas from the National Weather Service on Thursday, Dec. 5, 2024.

Providential timing with Thursday’s 7.0, 4.7 mag and multiple more quakes along Nor Cal coast

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) announced that the Senate passed their bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) through Fiscal Year 2028. Senate passage of the bill comes after a series of major earthquakes struck Northern California this morning, triggering tsunami warnings and underscoring the urgent need for early warning systems and earthquake safety programs like NEHRP. The legislation now heads to the U.S. House of Representatives.

The bill would authorize a total of $175.4 million per year from FY 2024-2028 across the four federal agencies responsible for long-term earthquake risk reduction under NEHRP: the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

“As today’s devastating Northern California earthquakes remind us, it is never a matter of if, but when the next major earthquake will strike,” said Padilla. “The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program supports crucial tools like the ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System, advances scientific understanding of earthquakes, and strengthens earthquake resilience in communities nationwide. With the safety of our communities at stake, we must stay vigilant. After today’s unanimous Senate passage, I will push my House colleagues to pass this bill to reauthorize this critical program as soon as possible.”

He was referring to both a 7.0-magnitude earthquake, 45 miles off the coast of Eureka and another 4.7 magnitude quake near Ferndale as well as multiple others throughout the day. (See Latest Earthquakes on the U.S. Geological Survey website)

Source: USGS

“Alaska faces significant earthquake risks as the most seismically active state-our communities must be prepared,” said Murkowski. “The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act provides crucial funding to federal agencies for the research, development, and implementation of earthquake safety procedures. The earthquake today in Northern California is a sober reminder of how critical these readiness measures are.”

Specifically, the NEHRP Reauthorization Act of 2024 would authorize $10.6 million for FEMA, $5.9 million for NIST, $58 million for NSF, and $100.9 million for USGS per year from FY 2024-2028. This funding would support research, development, and implementation activities related to earthquake safety and risk reduction.

This NEHRP reauthorization includes:

  • Directing state and local entities to inventory high risk buildings and structures,
  • Expanding seismic events to include earthquake-caused tsunamis;
  • Providing more technical assistance to Tribal governments; and
  • Improving mitigation for earthquake-connected hazards.

California faces substantial earthquake risks. According to the California Department of Conservation, over 70 percent of Californians live within 30 miles of a fault that could cause high ground shaking within the next 50 years. The state averages two to three earthquakes per year at magnitude 5.5 or higher, risking moderate structural damage. Because of these major earthquake risks, California has become a leader in earthquake research.

The NEHRP Reauthorization Act of 2024 is endorsed by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), BuildStrong America, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), International Code Council (ICC), the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA), the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), Seismological Society of America, and the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC).

Senator Padilla has long been a leader in mitigating earthquake risks. As a California State Senator, Padilla authored Senate Bill 135, signed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2013, which required the state to establish the nation’s first statewide early warning system. In 2021, he led five of his U.S. Senate colleagues in requesting details from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on future plans and funding needs for the West Coast Early Earthquake Warning system.

 

 

Filed Under: Earthquakes, Legislation, News

Bay Area: Padilla, Garamendi introduce bill to expand San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge

September 27, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge Boundary Modification Act map. Source: Office of U.S. Senator Alex Padilla

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife, and U.S. Representative John Garamendi (D-Calif.-08) introduced legislation to expand the San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge by approximately 5,658 acres.

The expansion would include adjacent baylands owned by the State of California and nonprofit Sonoma Land Trust, with parcels in Solano County, Marin County, and Sonoma County. Representatives Jared Huffman (D-Calif.-02) and Mike Thompson (D-Calif.-04) are cosponsoring the bill in the House of Representatives.

“The San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge hosts a rich wetland ecosystem and offers numerous recreational activities,” said Padilla. “Expanding the refuge’s boundary by over 5,500 acres would both protect Northern California tidal marshes to support wildlife and advance California’s ambitious conservation goals.”

“Conserving California’s special places has been a lifelong passion throughout my tenure in the state legislature, as Deputy Secretary of the Interior to President Clinton, and now as a member of Congress representing Solano County. San Pablo Bay is one of those special places. Our bill will help to restore the saltmarshes in San Pablo Bay for future generations. Expanding the National Wildlife Refuge is part of my ongoing work in Congress to support the redevelopment of historic Mare Island for Bay Area residents and visitors alike, while revitalizing its shipbuilding industry,” said Garamendi.

“The San Pablo Bay Wildlife Refuge is home to some of the North Bay’s most vital habitats — serving as a safe haven for threatened species, increasing the region’s climate resiliency, and providing outdoor recreation opportunities for folks in the Bay Area. As a time-tested proponent of land conservation, I think this area is the perfect candidate for expansion,” said Huffman. “Our bill will restore and expand this land so it can thrive for generations to come.”

“San Pablo Bay is an essential part of California, and protecting local saltmarshes and baylands is a priority for Bay Area lawmakers and communities,” said Representative Thompson. “I’m honored to introduce The San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act with Congressman Garamendi, Congressman Huffman, and Senator Padilla to ensure we protect the health and longevity of our region’s natural resources for generations to come.”

The approximately 5,658 acres of state-owned and privately owned conservation land proposed for addition to the San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge are as follows:

The San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act would also direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into cooperative agreements with state agencies, like California’s Department of Fish and Wildlife, to manage the federal National Wildlife Refuge and nearby state conservation lands within the San Pablo Bay watershed. As with all National Wildlife Refuges, the legislation ensures that federally owned land within the expanded San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge boundary remain open to the public for outdoor recreation, including hunting and fishing where permitted. The bill would not affect private land ownership or local land use decisions in any way and prohibits the use of eminent domain by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to expand the National Wildlife Refuge.

The San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge currently encompasses 24,390 acres, much of which is over water. The proposed 5,658-acre expansion would increase the National Wildlife Refuge’s acreage by more than 23 percent, supporting President Biden’s “America the Beautiful” National Conservation Goal to protect and conserve at least 30 percent of the lands and waters in the United States by 2030 and Governor Newsom’s similar conservation goal for California.

The bill is endorsed by organizations including Sonoma Land Trust, California State Coastal Conservancy, Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, CalWild, Sierra Club, Tuleyome, California Waterfowl Association, American Rivers, Friends of the Lost Coast, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, National Wildlife Refuge Association, Endangered Habitats League, Californians for Western Wilderness, Klamath Forest Alliance, Wilderness Society, Save Mount Diablo, Ocean Project, Latino Outdoors, and Resource Renewal Institute.

Senator Padilla has secured millions of dollars to support San Pablo Bay. The $2.3 million he secured in the FY 2023 and FY 2024 appropriations packages for the Hamilton Airfields Wetlands Restoration project will help restore tidal and seasonal wetlands at the former Army airfield on San Pablo Bay in the city of Novato. He also announced $1.64 million for San Pablo Bay and Mare Island Strait to perform preliminary channel assessments in order to maintain the Mare Island Strait’s authorized width and depth, and to ensure a safe and navigable waterway for current and future economic development of Mare Island and the City of Vallejo.

A map of the proposed boundary expansion is available here.

Full text of the legislation is available here.

Filed Under: East Bay, Environment, Legislation, News

Glazer announces $2.5 million incentive program for construction of 350 ADUs in Contra Costa, Alameda counties

September 6, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

15 cities eligible to participate in ADU Accelerator Program

By Steven Harmon, Policy Analyst/Communications, Office of State Senator Steve Glazer

SACRAMENTO – Senator Steve Glazer, D-Contra Costa, announced a newly created program to encourage the construction of hundreds of Accessory Dwelling Units in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties.

The ADU Accelerator Program, secured in the budget through Senator Glazer’s efforts, offers rebates of up to $15,000 for qualifying ADU plans and projects. This $2.5 million state-funded initiative is intended to facilitate the construction of 350 ADUs among the 15 cities and towns in the East Bay.

“It is no secret the State of California is facing a shortage of available and affordable housing, and no one knows this better than our local cities and towns,” Glazer said. “From my first days in the State Senate, I have been a staunch supporter of cities seeking new and unique ways to spur the production of housing while blending new developments within the fabric of their communities.”

“I’m hoping that cities in my district can show what can be achieved when cities work together with the state on an incentivized program aimed at producing more affordable housing,” Senator Glazer said.

The program, approved in the 2023 budget, will be administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

The 15 cities are: Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, Dublin, Lafayette, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pittsburg, San Ramon, Walnut Creek in Contra Costa County and Livermore and Pleasanton in Alameda County.

Qualifying cities must have a Certified Housing Element that meets the substantial compliance requirements of Housing and Community Development.

Following is an overview of the new program along with guidelines to apply and receive funds. ADU-Program-Overview

Senate District 7 – ADU Accelerator Program | GUIDELINES

Program Overview

Some cities are taking steps to encourage and facilitate the construction of ADUs through the development of permit-ready plans, including architectural design work. Other cities are waiving processing fees to bring down the cost of housing.

This new program will be piloted by Senator Glazer’s District 7, composed of 15 cities in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area. The program will be administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for the purpose of advancing or “accelerating” the production of 350 ADUs through a series of programs.

Program Funding

Section 19.564 of the Budget Act of 2023 provides $2,500,000 to be allocated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for implementation of the ADU Accelerator Program (“Program”) to grant funds to cities for the creation of pre-approved permit-ready accessory dwelling unit plans and an incentive program.

Program Eligibility

  • Fifteen (15) cities located in Senate District 7, including: Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, Dublin, Lafayette, Livermore, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pittsburg, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek.
  • Qualifying cities must have a Certified Housing Element that meets the substantial compliance requirements of Housing and Community Development.

Program Details

  1. Incentive Program. Available Funding: $1,725,000
  2. Low-Income Restricted ADUs

Provide individual rebates of up to $15,000 to property owners who obtain building permits to construct an ADU and receive a certificate of occupancy within 18 months of issuance. Rebates will be provided for units that are deed restricted to low-income households for a minimum of 20 years; based upon the following sliding scale:

  • $15,000 for units < 50 square feet
  • $10,000 for units between 501-750 square feet
  • $5,000 for units between 751-1,000 square feet
  • No rebates for units over 1,000 square feet.
  1. Non-restrictedADUs

Provide individual rebates of up to $7,500 to property owners who obtain building permits to construct an ADU and receive a certificate of occupancy within 18 months of issuance. Rebates will be provided for units that are deed restricted to low-income households for a minimum of 20 years. Funds are awarded based upon the following sliding scale:

  • $7,500 for units < 50 square feet
  • $5,000 for units between 501-750 square feet
  • $2,500 for units between 751-1,000 square feet
  • No rebates for units over 1,000 square feet.

Example:

  • City of Dublin has a population of 72,917 (as of January 1, 2024)
  • Per Capita: $1.87
  • Eligible for Award of $136,352 ($1.87 per capita x 72,917 population)
  • Divided by average of $5,000 per unit (unrestricted)

Potential ADUs Added: 27 ADUs

  1. Permit Ready Prototype ADU Plans. Available Funding: $750,000

Qualified cities receive funding toward preparing prototypical permit-ready ADU plans (“ADU Plans”), including design elevations and construction drawings. Permit-ready plans are intended to streamline the ADU development process and facilitate additional ADU development in the community. Cities may partner with other cities on applications in this category to leverage investment. The maximum grant per city will be $50,000.

Cities may not be reimbursed for permit-ready ADU plans that were prepared prior to the launch of this program. Program funds may be used to modify or update existing permit-ready ADU plans or to create additional permit-ready ADU plans. Cities may also seek compensation from other eligible cities they share plans with.

Application Process

To receive funds, qualified cities must complete and submit an electronic application to the Town of Danville, Fiscal Agent. All funds must be expended as prescribed below and no later than September 30, 2026, after which these funds would be considered unexpended “Excess Funds” subject to re-allocation.

Incentive Program

An application must include (a) the anticipated number of units proposed to be produced through the program; and (b) amount requested based on the per capita amount identified in the Funding Eligibility section.

Funding will be distributed to cities upon receipt of the application. Any unused funding must be returned to the Town of Danville, Fiscal Agent, at the end of the 18-month period and may be reallocated to cities that meet their targets and have additional need.

Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans

An application must include (a) brief description of the plans to be developed including the number of floor plans and ADU sizes; and (b) requested funding amount. The maximum funding is $50,000 per agency. Cities may partner with other eligible cities on applications in this category to leverage funding investment.

Funding will be distributed to cities upon receipt of the application. Permit-ready plans must be completed and available to prospective permittees within 12 months of grant award and include a city resolution adopting the ADU Plans.

Excess Funds

Any funding that has not been expended pursuant to these program guidelines by September 30, 2026, must be returned to the Fiscal Agent, the Town of Danville. These Excess Funds will be reallocated to other eligible agencies pursuant to the Incentive Program Guidelines. Funds will be re-allocated on a first come, first served basis. In the event of multiple requests, consideration will be given to which city or cities will generate the largest number of affordable units.

Application Deadlines

Applications are accepted via electronic submittal only

Incentive Program: September 1, 2024 – March 31, 2025 (may be extended if additional funds are available to be rolled over from the Permit-Ready program).

Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans: September 1, 2024 – March 31, 2025.

Program Administration

As authorized through the California Budget Act of 2023 and the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the Town of Danville will act as the fiscal agent (“Fiscal Agent”) to receive funding applications and distribute Program funds. The Town of Danville will receive a 1% fee ($25,000) for administering the program.

General program questions can be directed to Planning Division c/o Jessica Lam, Town of Danville at jlam@danville.ca.gov or (925) 314-3337.

Applications and application-related correspondence can be directed to SD7.ADUProgram@danville.ca.gov.

Biannual Reporting

Eligible recipients will be required to submit Biannual Progress Reports which summarize the number of ADUs that have been permitted and finaled for the reporting period as well as cumulatively for the life of the program through September 30, 2027.

Biannual Progress Reports will be filed with the Fiscal Agent at SD7.ADUProgram@danville.ca.gov.

*Applications are accepted via electronic submittal only

Filed Under: East Bay, Finances, Housing, Legislation, News, State of California

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • …
  • 14
  • Next Page »
Monica's-Riverview-Jan-2026
Liberty-Tax-Jan-Apr-2026
Deer-Valley-Chiro-06-22

Copyright © 2026 · Contra Costa Herald · Site by Clifton Creative Web