Contra Costa Herald

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

State Division of Boating and Waterways set to control aquatic invasive plants in Delta

By Leave a Comment

Photos from Division of Boating and Waterways.

SACRAMENTO, Calif.— California State Parks’ Division of Boating and Waterways (DBW) today announced plans to control aquatic invasive plants in the west coast’s largest estuary, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its southern tributaries. Starting March 6 through Nov. 30, 2024, DBW crews will begin herbicide treatments on water hyacinth, South American spongeplant, Uruguay water primrose, Alligator weed, Brazilian waterweed, curly leaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, coontail, ribbon weed, and fanwort in the Delta. Depending on weather conditions and plant growth/movement, treatment dates may change. Select areas of the Delta with high infestations or coverage of water hyacinth will be controlled using mechanical harvesting efforts through December 2024.

DBW works with local, state, and federal entities to better understand the plants and implement new integrated control strategies to increase efficacy. These aquatic invasive plants have no known natural controls and negatively affect the Delta’s ecosystem as they displace native plants. Continued warm temperatures help the plants proliferate at high rates. Plants are also known to form dense mats of vegetation creating safety hazards for boaters, obstructing navigation channels, marinas, and irrigation systems. Due to their ability to rapidly spread to new areas, it is likely that the plants will never be eradicated from Delta waters. Therefore, DBW operates a “control” program as opposed to an “eradication” program.

“Thank you to the public and partners for working with us on combating these aquatic invasive plants,” said DBW’s Deputy Director Ramona Fernandez. “Together we are mitigating their impacts on the lives of all who live, work, and recreate in the Delta.”

All herbicides used in DBW’s Aquatic Invasive Plant Control Program are registered for aquatic use with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Treated areas will be monitored to ensure herbicide levels do not exceed allowable limits and follow EPA-registered label guidelines. The public may view the public notices and sign up to receive weekly updates on this year’s treatment season on DBW’s website.

Below is a list of proposed control actions for the 2024 treatment season:

Floating Aquatic Vegetation (Public Notice)

Water hyacinth, South American spongeplant, Uruguay water primrose, and alligator weed.

Herbicide Control

  • Proposed Treatment Period
     All Sites: March 6, 2024 – Nov. 30, 2024
  • Type of Herbicides: Glyphosate, 2,4-D, Imazamox, or Diquat
  • Potential Treatment Areas: Initially in and/or around, but not limited to the following areas: San Joaquin River, Old River, Middle River, Fourteen Mile Slough, and Snodgrass Slough.

Mechanical Harvesting (If necessary)

  • Harvesting Dates: March 2024 – April 2024 and July 2024 – December 2024
  • Mechanical Harvesting Sites: Select areas of the Delta with high infestations or coverage of water hyacinth. See the Public Notice for potential mechanical harvesting control areas.

Submersed Aquatic Vegetation (Public Notice)

Brazilian waterweed, curlyleaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, coontail, ribbon weed, and fanwort.

Herbicide Control

  • Treatment Period: Starting March 6, 2024, through Nov. 30, 2024, treatment period is based upon DBW field survey data, water temperatures and fish surveys.
  • Type of Herbicide: Fluridone, Endothall or Diquat.
  • Potential Treatment Areas: In and/or around the following areas (individual areas will be noticed prior to treatment application):

Anchorages, boat ramps and marinas: B & W Resort, Delta Marina Yacht Harbor, Grindstone Joes, Hidden Harbor Resort, Korth’s Pirates Lair, Oxbow Marina, Owl Harbor, River Point Landing, Rivers End, St. Francis Yacht Club, Tiki Lagoon, Tracy Oasis Marina, Turner Cut Resort, Vieira’s Resort, Village West Marina, and Willow Berm.
Near Old River: Berkeley Ski Club, Bullfrog Ski Club, Cruiser Haven, Delta Coves, Diablo Ski Club, Discovery Bay, Golden Gate Ski Club, Hammer Island, Italian Slough, Kings Island, Orwood Marina, Piper Slough, Sandmound Slough, Stockton Ski Club, and Taylor Slough.

Sacramento Area: French Island, Hogback, Long Island Slough, Prospect Island, Sacramento Marina, Snug Harbor, and Washington Lake.

Stockton Area: Atherton Cove, Buckley Cove, Calaveras River, Fourteenmile Slough, Mosher Slough, and Windmill Cove.

Mechanical Harvesting

This type of control method is not used for submersed aquatic vegetation. These plants are spread by fragmentation. Cutting the plants back exacerbates the problem, as shreds of the plants float away and re-propagate.

To report sightings, subscribe for program updates or more information regarding the control program, connect with us online at our website, via email at  AIS@parks.ca.gov, or by phone at (888) 326-2822.

Last year, DBW treated 2,377 acres of floating aquatic vegetation and 1,405 acres of submersed aquatic vegetation. No mechanical harvesting was conducted. A combination of herbicide, biological, and mechanical control methods were used to help control invasive plants at high-priority sites in the Delta.

In 1982, California state legislation designated DBW as the lead state agency to cooperate with other state, local, and federal agencies in controlling water hyacinth in the Delta, its tributaries, and the SuisunMarsh. The Egeria Densa Control Program was authorized by law in 1997 and treatment began in 2001. In 2012, spongeplant was authorized for control upon completion of the biological assessment. In 2013, DBW was able to expand its jurisdiction to include other invasive aquatic plants, and since then other aquatic invasive plants such as Uruguay water primrose, Eurasian watermilfoil, Carolina fanwort, coontail, Alligator weed, and Ribbon weed have been added to the AIPCP program.

Revenues from boaters’ registration fees and gasoline taxes (Harbors and Watercraft RevolvingFund), provide funding for DBW’s Aquatic Invasive Plant Control Program.

 

CA Legislative Analyst’s Office increases state deficit by $15 billion to $73 billion

By Leave a Comment

The 2024‑25 Budget

Deficit Update

Under LAO Revenue Update, Budget Problem Grows by $15 Billion

February 20, 2024

From the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, The California Legislature’s Non-Partisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor

The state already faces a significant deficit this year—we estimate it totaled $58 billion under the administration’s revenue forecast at the time the Governor’s budget was proposed in January. However, recent revenue collections data reflect even further weakness relative to those estimates. Specifically, our forecast is about $24 billion below the Governor’s budget across 2022‑23 to 2024‑25. All else equal, this means the budget problem is likely to be higher at the time of the May Revision. The actual increase in the state’s budget problem will depend on a number of factors, including formula-driven spending changes, most notably Proposition 98 spending requirements for schools and community colleges. (Due to specific circumstances this year, changes in revenues are unlikely to have a significant effect on the state’s other major formula-driven spending requirements, specifically related to Proposition 2.) Roughly, a $24 billion erosion in revenues corresponds to a $15 billion increase in the budget problem. This would expand the $58 billion estimated deficit to $73 billion under our updated revenue forecast.

Options to Address $15 Billion in Additional Budget Problem

If the budget problem increases by $15 billion, the Legislature will need to find a like amount of new budget solutions to ensure the budget is balanced for 2024‑25. Budget solutions include, for example: revenue increases and spending reductions (on both a one-time and ongoing basis), as well as other tools, like reserves and cost shifts. As the Legislature considers how to address this increased budget problem, we have put together a set of tables identifying one-time and temporary spending that could be pulled back or reduced in order to achieve budgetary savings. Below, we explain why we set forth these amounts as a possible first option to addressing a larger budget problem and then walk through our method for estimating the amounts potentially available in more detail.

Why Reduce One-Time and Temporary Spending?

The Legislature will weigh the implications of each possible solution—including increasing revenues and spending reductions—against others and, ultimately, choose a mix of solutions based on its priorities. We recommend the Legislature start by reviewing whether recent augmentations for one-time and temporary spending could be pulled back or reduced. We recommend this approach for two key reasons. First, when this one-time and temporary spending was adopted, it was understood that doing so would provide a cushion for future budget problems. For example, the administration frequently displayed “operating surpluses” in its multiyear forecasts excluding this type of spending—implying that the administration understood that the state could not afford all of the commitments under its own projections, but the state could afford the ongoing budget.

Second, the more the Legislature reduces one-time and temporary spending this year, the more other tools it can preserve for future budget problems. Reducing one-time and temporary spending is a “use or lose” tool for addressing the budget problem—once the funds are disbursed to recipients, pulling them back becomes practically impossible. Other tools, like reserve withdrawals and cost shifts, also can be used only once, but at any time. Saving them to deploy in the future can help the Legislature avoid cuts to ongoing services—which involve very difficult decisions. For example, in the Great Recession, the programs with some of the largest expenditure reductions were in health and human services, including to Medi-Cal, which provides health coverage to low-income individuals and the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, which provides income assistance to low-income individuals. Although the federal government has certain requirements for minimum state participation in these programs, California provides services well above these minimums. As a result, reductions tend to be concentrated in these areas because they are the ones where the state has the most flexibility to reduce spending without raising issues related to requirements imposed by courts, the voters, and the federal government. As such, maintaining other tools like reserves and cost shifts now could help mitigate reductions in these areas in the future.

Options Possibly Available to Reduce One-Time and Temporary Spending

State Allocated Large Shares of Surpluses to Temporary Purposes, Although Some Has Been Disbursed or Already Proposed for Reduction. Recent budgets allocated tens of billions of dollars in surpluses to one-time and temporary spending, including in 2023‑24, 2024‑25, and 2025‑26. Some spending, most notably for 2023‑24, has already been disbursed or encumbered. This means, for example, that grants have been awarded, funds have been transferred to other entities of government, and contracts or leases have been signed. (In some cases, funds have also been committed for 2024‑25 and 2025‑26, for example, through grant awards.) In addition, the Governor has already proposed pulling back much—but not all—of the undisbursed spending associated with these augmentations.

State Has Nearly $16 Billion in Recent One-Time and Temporary Spending That Could Possibly Still Be Pulled Back or Reduced. After setting aside disbursements and Governor’s budget proposals, we estimate the state possibly could pull back and reduce one-time and temporary augmentations by as much as $6.4 billion in 2023‑24, $4.1 billion in 2024‑25, and $5.1 billion in 2025‑26. Figure 1 shows the distribution of these amounts by program area, while the Appendix includes a complete list of them. These figures represent our current estimates of the amounts for which the Legislature has broad authority to make reductions, which could help the state address a larger budget problem in May. (In some cases, however, further disbursements could occur between now and May, such smaller amounts would be available for reduction at that time.)

Figure 1

Summary of Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending

(In Millions)

2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
Business and Labor $266 $284 $198
Criminal Justice 130 40 —
Education 602 1,195 1,109
Health and Human Services 867 301 701
Housing and Homelessness 1,599 — 260
Other 1,752 557 432
Resources and Environment 1,049 1,005 1,377
Transportation 146 739 1,000
Totals $6,411 $4,121 $5,076
Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.

This Information Reflects Our Best Current Understanding. While these estimates reflect the best information we have available, in many cases we do not have perfect information from the administration about the current status of funds. As such, we would view this list as a starting place for the Legislature as it begins crafting the final budget package. For any specific reductions, particularly in 2023‑24, the Legislature could ask the administration for detailed and up-to-date information on disbursements and encumbrances.

More Could Be Pulled Back From Earlier Years. For the purposes of this analysis, we only reviewed disbursements and encumbrances authorized for 2023‑24 and later. There is, however, additional spending attributable to 2022‑23 and earlier that has not yet been disbursed. The Legislature could ask the administration to provide information about the amount of unspent funds from these earlier years.

Appendix Tables

Appendix Figure 1

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Business and Labor

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
EDD New IT overhaul—EDDNext $99 — —
GO Biz California Competes Grants 10 — —
HCAI Health and home care workforce package 85 $259 $198
HCAI Behavioral health workforce capacity 52 — —
HCAI Various other health care workforce initiatives 20 25 —
Totals $266 $284 $198
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
EDD = Employment Development Department; IT = information technology; GO Biz = Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development; and HCAI = Department of Health Care Access and Information.

Appendix Figure 2

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Criminal Justice

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
BSCC Adult Reentry Grant $20 — —
CDCR Expansion of community reentry centers 40 $40 —
CDCR Various capital projects at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center 20 — —
OES Nonprofit Security Grant Program 40 — —
OES Family Justice Centers 10 — —
Totals $130 $40 —
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
BSCC = Board of State and Community Corrections; CDCR = California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; and OES = Governor’s Office of Emergency Services.

Appendix Figure 3

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Education

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
CSAC Golden State Teacher Grants $91 $128 $1
CSU CSU Dominguez Hills Dymally Institute facility 15 — —
DGS State share for school construction projects 472 994 485
DGS Construction and renovation of transitional kindergarten, State Preschool, and full‑day kindergarten facilities — — 550
OPR California College Corps Program — 73 73
UC Cancer Research Relating to Firefighters 7 — —
UC UC Berkeley School of Journalism Police Records Access Project 7 — —
UC UC Los Angeles Ralph J. Bunche Center 5 — —
UC UC Davis Equine Performance and Rehabilitation Center 5 — —
Totals $602 $1,195 1,109
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
CSAC = Student Aid Commission; DGS = Department of General Services; and OPR = Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

Appendix Figure 4

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Health and Human Services

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
CalHHS Health innovation accelerator initiative — — $43
CDPH Carryover from certain one‑time funds in previous years $268 — —
CDPH COVID‑19 response 25 — —
CDPH Public health IT systems 9 — —
CDPH Public education and change campaign — $40 5
Aging Modernizing the Older Californians Act — 37 37
DHCS Behavioral Health Bridge Housing program — — 235
DHCS Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program — 100 381
DHCS Evidence‑based and community‑defined behavioral health programs — 109 —
DSS CalFresh minimum nutrition benefit pilot — 15 —
HCAI Carryover from certain one‑time funds in previous years 565 — —
Totals $867 $301 $701
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
CalHHS = Health and Human Services Agency; CDPH = California Department of Public Health; Aging = Department of Aging; DHCS = Department of Health Care Services; DSS = Department of Social Services; and HCAI = Department of Health Care Access and Information.

Appendix Figure 5

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Housing and Homelessness

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
BCH Agencya Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (HHAPP) $1,100 — $260
BCH Agency Encampment Resolution Grants 299 — —
HCD Portfolio Reinvestment Program 100 — —
HCD Multifamily Housing Program 75 — —
HCD Infill Infrastructure Grant Program 25 — —
Totals $1,599 — $260
aBy the time the HHAPP costs are incurred, the program will have transferred to from BCSH Agency to HCD.
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
BCH Agency Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency and HCD = Department of Housing and Community Development.

Appendix Figure 6

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Other

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
CDT Broadband infrastructure—increased middle‑mile network costs $420 $250 —
CPUC Broadband infrastructure—last‑mile projects 900 100 $200
CPUC Broadband infrastructure—Broadband Loan Loss Reserve Fund 175 150 175
GO‑Biz Fresno Infrastructure Plan 50 — —
OPR Establish new office of public outreach 60 57 57
SCO California State Payroll System 147 — —
Totals $1,752 $557 $432
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages
CDT = California Department of Technology; CPUC = California Public Utilities Commission; GO‑Biz = Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development; OPR = Governor’s Office of Planning and Research; and SCO = State Controller’s Office.

Appendix Figure 7

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Resources and Environment

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
CalEPA Environmental Justice Initiative (Community Resilience Package) $5 — —
CalFire Post‑fire reforestation and regeneration (Wildfire Resilience Package) 50 — —
CalFire Emergency surge (helitanker contract component) 45 $45 —
CalFire Forest Improvement Program (Wildfire Resilience Package) 13 — —
CalFire Tribal engagement (Wildfire Resilience Package) 10 — —
CARB FARMER program 75 — —
CARB Clean Cars 4 All (ZEV Package) 50 — —
CARB AB 617 (Community Resilience Package) 50 — —
CARB Equitable Building Decarbonization (Energy Package) 20 — —
CEC Clean Energy Reliability Investment Plan (SB 846) 100 400 $500
CEC Distributed Electricity Backup Assets (Energy Package) 100 25 25
CEC Demand Side Grid Support (Energy Package) 95 — —
CEC Equitable Building Decarbonization (Energy Package) — 53 92
CNRA Water resilience projects (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) 171 — —
CNRA Tribal nature‑based solutions program (Nature‑Based Solutions Package) 30 — —
CPUC Residential Solar and Storage (Energy Package) — 50 100
DTSC Brownfield cleanups — 85 15
DWR Flood and dam safety (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) 53 — —
DWR Oroville Pump Storage (Energy Package) 4 10 20
DWR American River flood project — 27 —
DWR Urban flood risk reduction — 35 —
DWR Strategic Reliability Assets (Energy Package) — 75 75
DWR Water conveyance, water storage (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) — — 500
Go‑Biz or CNRA Diablo Canyon land use planning — — 50
IBank Transmission Financing (Energy Package) 25 — —
OPC Ocean protection (Coastal Resilience Package) 13 — —
OPC Coastal resilience SB 1 implementation (Coastal Resilience Package) 1 — —
OPR Community‑Based Public Awareness Campaign (Extreme Heat Package) 14 — —
SWRCB Water recycling, groundwater cleanup (Drought‑Water Resilience Package) 17 — —
SWRCB Drinking water and wastewater projects (Drought‑Water Resilience) — 200 —
Various Misc Nature‑Based Solutions Package 9 — —
Various Misc Wildfire Resilience Package 5 — —
WCB Protect fish and wildlife from changing conditions (Nature‑Based Solutions) 49 — —
WCB Various WCB programs (Nature‑Based Solutions Package) 46 — —
Totals $1,049 $1,005 $1,377
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages
CalEPA = California Environmental Protection Agency; CalFire = California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; CARB = California Air Resources Board; CEC = California Energy Commission; CNRA = California Natural Resources Agency; CPUC = California Public Utilities Commission; DTSC = Department of Toxics and Substances Control; DWR = Department of Water Resources; Go‑Biz = Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development; IBank =California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank; OPC = Ocean Protection Council; OPR = Governor’s Office of Planning and Research; SWRCB = State Water Resources Control Board; and WCB = Wildlife Conservation Board.

Appendix Figure 8

Possible Remaining One‑Time and Temporary Spending:
Transportation

(In Millions)

Department/
Program Area		 Description 2023‑24 2024‑25 2025‑26
Caltrans Clean California $146 — —
CalSTA Transit and rail funding (Transportation Infrastructure) — $739 $1,000
Totals $146 $739 $1,000
Note: This table includes allocations from the 2021 and 2022 budget packages that remain after accounting for Governor’s budget proposals and known disbursements and encumbrances, as of February 2024. In some cases our office does not have full information on disbursements from the administration, which means these estimates reflect our best understanding at this time.

Note: Amounts reflect one‑time and temporary spending adopted in the 2021 and 2022 budget packages.
Caltrans = California Department of Transportation and CalSTA = California State Transportation Agency.

 

Former Contra Costa Deputy Sheriff negotiates plea agreement to gun charge, filing false police report, preparing false documents

By Leave a Comment

Matthew Buckley charged with 6 felonies for actions while serving search warrant in Antioch; former Officer of the Year will serve 3 years & 8 months in prison

By Ted Asregadoo, Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office

Martinez, California – Today, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office reached a negotiated plea against 42-year-old Matthew Allen Buckley, of Pinole, for offenses that occurred when he was a deputy with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office.

Buckley was charged in February 2023 with six felonies and one misdemeanor related to offenses that occurred in 2020 and 2022. In a negotiated disposition, Buckley pled no contest to three felonies, including possession of an illegal assault weapon, filing a false police report, and preparing false documentary evidence [PC30605, PC118.1, and PC134]. Buckley will receive a three years and eight months prison sentence, which he can serve on mandatory supervised release if he successfully completes a six-month drug rehab program.

The case began in September 2020 when Buckley, assigned to the Contra Costa County Anti-Violence Support Effort (C.A.S.E), participated in a task force executing a search warrant in Antioch. During the operation, Deputy Buckley seized two illegal AR-15s, phones, laptops, heroin, and drug paraphernalia.

After seizing the AR 15s, Deputy Buckley authored a police report where he falsely claimed to have booked the firearms into evidence. Instead of booking the illegal weapons, Buckley separated the upper sections from the lower sections of the firearm. He returned possession of the upper sections of the firearms to the original owner, but never returned the lower sections of the firearms.

As part of this investigation the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department discovered that Deputy Buckley created false documents and signed for a judge without his consent on multiple search warrant returns for unrelated cases.

In August 2022 as the investigation was concluding, Deputies with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office searched Buckley’s residence and found the lower sections of the AR-15s as well as a small amount of methamphetamine.

According to his Linkedin profile, Buckley worked for the Sheriff’s Office for 15 years, including his final three years and 10 months as a detective. Previously, he had worked as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT), Field Training Officer and then a Station Supervisor for ProTransport-1 ambulance service in Pleasant Hill. He started his work life as a Network Security Engineer for Bank of American in Concord.

In 2019, he was named the department’s Officer of the Year.

Pursuant to California Government Code, Matthew Buckley will be legally ineligible to serve as a police officer. Moreover, convicted of felony offenses, Buckley is prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Contra Costa Advisory Council on Equal Employment Opportunity seeks three members

By Leave a Comment

One Business member, two Community members

The Contra Costa County Advisory Council on Equal Employment Opportunity (ACEEO) has one vacant Business seat and two vacant Community seats open to applicants. The successful candidate for the Business seat must own a business within the county, and candidate(s) for the Community seats must either work or reside within the county. All candidates must have an interest in equal employment matters. The ACEEO meets on the fourth Friday of each month from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., except for holidays.

The ACEEO assists with the implementation of the County’s Equal Employment Opportunities and Contracting Programs and serves as an advisory committee to the Board of Supervisors. The ACEEO reviews the Equal Employment Opportunities Program and recommends actions to facilitate the attainment of the County’s goals for equal employment opportunities regardless of gender and race/ethnicity.

The Board of Supervisors established the ACEEO on July 9, 1991. The Council has thirteen (13) seats representing the following groups: 4 Community seats; 2 Labor seats; 2 Management seats; 1 Educational seat; 1 Disability seat; 1 Business seat; 1 Veteran seat; and 1 Labor/Trade seat.

Application forms can be obtained from the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors by calling (925) 655- 2000 or visiting the County webpage at www.contracosta.ca.gov/3418. Applications should be returned to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 1025 Escobar St., 1st Floor, Martinez, CA 94553. Applications can also be emailed to ClerkoftheBoard@cob.cccounty.us.

Applicants should plan to be available for public interviews. For further information about the ACEEO, please contact Antoine Wilson at antoine.wilson@riskm.cccounty.us or (925) 335-1455. You can also visit the web page at www.contracosta.ca.gov/4503/Advisory-Council-on-Equal- Employment-Opp.

 

DeSaulnier announces 2024 Congressional Art Competition for high school students

By Leave a Comment

2022 District CA-11 Congressional Art Competition winner, “Growing Up” by Menglin Cai of Danville. Source: Office of Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (when he represented the 11th District)

Deadline for submittals is April 5th

Walnut Creek, CA – Today, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D, CA-10) announced he will participate in the nationwide 2024 Congressional Art Competition. High school artists living in California’s 10th Congressional District may begin submitting original artwork to his office virtually from now through Friday, April 5th. The winning piece will be selected by a panel of local judges who will view all artwork electronically and announced at a reception to celebrate all participants following the submission deadline.

Participants may submit one photograph or scan of their artwork, taken in the highest possible resolution, to kaylee.deland@mail.house.gov. Submissions must include the Student Release Form. Artwork entered in the contest may be up to 26 inches by 26 inches, may be up to 4 inches in depth, and not weigh more than 15 pounds. If your artwork is selected as the winning piece, it must arrive framed and must still measure no larger than the above maximum dimensions.

  • Paintings – including oil, acrylics, and watercolor
  • Drawings – including pastels, colored pencil, pencil, charcoal, ink, and markers (It is recommended that charcoal and pastel drawings be fixed.)
  • Collages – must be two dimensional
  • Prints – including lithographs, silkscreen, and block prints
  • Mixed Media – use of more than two mediums such as pencil, ink, watercolor, etc.
  • Computer-generated art
  • Photography

All entries must be original in concept, design and execution and may not violate any U.S. copyright laws. Any entry that has been copied from an existing photo or image (including a painting, graphic, or advertisement) that was created by someone other than the student is a violation of the competition rules and will not be accepted. Work entered must be in the original medium (that is, not a scanned reproduction of a painting or drawing).

The rules for the 2024 competition are available here or on House.gov.

“Every year I am so impressed by the talent of the students in our district who participate in the Congressional Art Competition,” said DeSaulnier. “I am pleased to again host this event as an opportunity for young artists to showcase and be recognized for their creativity.”

The competition is open to all high school students living in California’s 10th Congressional District. The winning piece will be displayed in the U.S. Capitol and the winner will be invited to Washington D.C. to attend a national reception honoring winners from around the country. All submissions must be emailed to Kaylee.deland@mail.house.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. PT on April 5, 2024.

The Congressional Art Competition is a nationwide high school visual art competition to recognize and encourage artistic talent in the nation and in each congressional district. Since the Competition began in 1982, more than 650,000 high school students have participated. Complete contest guidelines and submissions forms are available on the Congressman’s website here. For more information or help submitting artwork, please contact DeSaulnier’s office at 925-933-2660.

Retired Pittsburg Chief Addington appointed Antioch Interim Chief of Police

By Leave a Comment

Former Pittsburg Police Chief Brian Addington has been appointed as Antioch’s interim police chief. Photo source: WBA Consulting & Investigative Services

Starts Monday, February 26, 2024

“We’re very lucky to have him as our chief.” – Councilman & retired Pittsburg Lt. Mike Barbanica

Police Officers Association “excited to learn” of appointment

Antioch, CA: Acting Antioch City Manager Kwame Reed has selected retired Pittsburg Police Chief Brian Addington to serve as Interim Chief of Police until a permanent chief is appointed. Chief Addington brings a wealth of experience and a deep understanding of East Contra Costa County law enforcement to this leadership role. He has a proven track record of leadership and dedication to public safety that are essential to guiding the department during this transitional period. Chief Addington’s first day in the office will be Monday, February 26, 2024. Chief Addington understands the challenges and opportunities facing law enforcement in our community. With over a decade of experience as the police chief in neighboring Pittsburg, he has demonstrated his commitment to serving the residents of East Contra Costa County with integrity and professionalism. “We are confident that Chief Addington’s leadership will enhance the safety and security of our community,” Reed said. “His extensive knowledge of local policing issues and his strong ties with the East County community make him the perfect choice to lead the Antioch Police Department during this interim period.” “Retired Chief Addington will come to Antioch with a strong ability to make tough decisions under difficult circumstances,” said Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe.  “Until the hiring of a permanent chief of police, he’ll work with City Hall to continue to rebuild police staffing levels and decrease 911 response times.” Addington expressed his gratitude for the opportunity to serve as Interim Chief of Police, stating, “I am honored to join the dedicated men and women of the Antioch Police Department. We will work tirelessly – with a renewed focus on serving our community – and upholding the department’s mission of protecting and serving the residents of Antioch with integrity, compassion, and professionalism.” When reached for comment District 2 Councilman and retired Pittsburg Police Lt. Mike Barbanica said, “I’m very supportive of Chief Addington. He’s a great addition to the APD. We’re very lucky to have him as our chief. I worked with him for many years at the PPD. In fact, he worked for me when. When I was a Bureau Commander and I had the pick of the list, Brian Addington was my first choice. He was my right-hand person. He’s an outstanding administrator. He’s the right choice.” “Addington and I worked together ridding the department of corruption, investigating officers who were falsifying arrest reports and we ended up removing the officer from the police department,” the councilman added. Police Officers Association “Excited to Learn” of Appointment Antioch Police Officers Association Vice President Sgt. Loren Bledsoe was asked for comment about Addington’s appointment. He responded, “The APOA was excited to learn that Chief Addington was selected for the position of Interim Chief of Police. APD has always shared a strong working relationship with the Pittsburg Police Department, and we look forward to the opportunity to support the mission and vision of Chief Addington here, at APD.” About Brian Addington According to a press release from the Pittsburg Police Department when Addington retired, “In 1994, Officer Brian Addington made, what we think, was the best decision of his career. He joined the Pittsburg Police Department after having served for a year and a half with the Suisun City Police Department. That decision left a lasting mark on our department and our Pittsburg community as he rose through the ranks to become our Police Chief serving in that role for the last decade. Chief Addington started as an officer in patrol on the Strategic Enforcement Team (SET) where he served for several years focused on reducing street-level crimes. From there, he became an undercover detective in the Narcotics Unit. In 1998, he was promoted to Sergeant where he trained and mentored officers in a wide variety of assignments. Chief Addington’s rise through the ranks included a promotion to Lieutenant in 2004 and then Captain in 2010. He served as our Public Information Officer as well as duties in patrol, training, narcotics, criminal and administrative investigations and so much more. As Police Chief, he focused on transparency and breaking down barriers between police and the community we’re sworn to serve. His modern approach to law enforcement strategies resulted in both a 10% decrease in crime and more than a 100% increase in diversity among the ranks of the Pittsburg Police Department. These are achievements that will last for decades to come. Chief Addington brought respect and a broader footprint for the Pittsburg Police Department through his service and leadership in many roles including membership with the FBI National Academy Associates, California Police Chiefs Association, and the International Association of Police Chiefs.” See a brief video of Addington’s farewell posted on the Pittsburg PD’s Facebook page. Addington’s Business, Education and Personal Background According to his LinkedIn profile, since retiring, Addington founded WBA Consulting and Investigations, LLC and is Chief Operations Officer for Vacaville-based Cole Pro Media. When reached for comment, Addington said, “I work part-time for Cole Pro Media which works with law enforcement agencies on communications strategy.” His profile on the WBA website offers more about his experience and knowledge. “His expertise covers the full range of policing disciplines based on his experiences in a law enforcement agency in California. Brian provides expert advice on best practices in policing, leadership development, organizational assessments, training, independent investigations, and community engagement and media relations. Brian has also served as an advisor and consultant to various law enforcement agencies and executives in developing strategies and best practices to address the ever-changing demands placed on law enforcement professionals.” He was able to retire at age 50 under the previous compensation package for many law enforcement agencies in the state, including the CHP and Antioch Police Department. Addington said he will be 52 in March. “My intent was always to work after I retired,” he stated. Addington is married, and together with his wife they have a total of eight children “in a blended family.” He earned a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a master’s degree in organizational leadership, both from Chapman University. In addition, Addington graduated from the FBI National Academy in 2012 and the California POST (Police Officer Standards and Training program) Command College in 2011. He’s been a board member with the Pittsburg Police Activities League since 2014 Asked why he goes by Brian, Addington shared, “My dad was William Calvin Addington, and I’m William Brian. My mom called me Brian. So, I just go by my middle name.” Addington said he was born in San Gabriel in the L.A. area and his family moved to Concord when he was three years old. “We then moved when I was eight to Fairfield. So, I grew up in Solano County,” he added. While he officially starts Monday, Reed was asked if Addington will be sworn in that day or during next Tuesday’s council meeting. He responded, “for the Oath of Office we are planning that now with it being tentatively set some time Tuesday afternoon.” Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.    

Bay Point, Antioch men convicted of drug trafficking

By Leave a Comment

Following wiretap investigation into East Bay drug suppliers and significant seizures of fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine and cash

Third man illegal alien from Mexico; among 13 defendants indicted in 2019

Each face maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for every count on which they were convicted

Attempt to use FBI investigation of APD officers as a defense denied

By U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of California

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal jury has convicted three defendants—Luis Torres Garcia, Evan Martinez Diaz of Bay Point, and Timothy Peoples of Antioch—of multiple drug trafficking offenses following an eight-day trial, announced United States Attorney Ismail J. Ramsey and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), San Francisco Field Division, Special Agent in Charge Brian M. Clark. The jury convicted the defendants on all counts, rendering its verdict on February 14, 2024, after deliberating for two hours. The verdict followed a trial before the Hon. Richard Seeborg, Chief U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California.

The three were among 13 defendants, including seven from Eastern Contra Costa County, indicted in May 2019 “on narcotics trafficking charges, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent in Charge Chris D. Nielsen.  The indictment follows the arrest of five of the defendants on April 30, 2019, and the execution of search warrants at thirteen locations, including nine residences in Contra Costa County, Humboldt County, Fairfield, Suisun City and Modesto.” (See related article)

The evidence at trial included calls intercepted between April 2018 and February 2019 as part of a federal wiretap investigation into two drug suppliers in the East Bay. The intercepted calls established, among other things, that both suppliers received drugs from sources in Mexico. At trial, the government also presented evidence of several significant drug seizures including: 8.8 pounds of fentanyl and heroin in May 2018, valued at as much as $1.1 million, according to uncontested evidence at trial; 18 pounds of methamphetamine in August 2018; and 20 pounds of methamphetamine and one kilogram of cocaine in February 2019. The evidence at trial also established that law enforcement seized more than $300,000 in drug-related cash over the course of the investigation.

Martinez Diaz, 31, of Bay Point, California, was charged with three counts—conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B); possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B); and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The evidence at trial established, among other things, that on February 9, 2019, Martinez Diaz was transporting about 20 pounds of methamphetamine and one kilogram of cocaine through a residential neighborhood in Antioch, California, when he realized he was being followed by law enforcement—which knew about the drugs through intercepted calls. Martinez Diaz began driving erratically, briefly evading law enforcement and directing a co-conspirator to discard the drugs he was carrying in the bushes on a residential street. A short time later law enforcement located the drugs, which evidence at trial established had street retail values of $177,860 (methamphetamine) and $40,000 (cocaine). After Martinez Diaz was stopped by police and released with a traffic citation, he was intercepted on a call telling his supplier that he had seen law enforcement and discarded the drugs to avoid arrest. (See judge’s opinion)

Peoples, 44, of Antioch, California, was arrested after law enforcement officers found cocaine in his home, and charged with two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)–(C). Evidence presented at trial showed that Peoples was a regular customer of an Antioch-based cocaine wholesaler from whom he bought some 10.5 pounds of cocaine for more than $120,000 in a 90-day period. Peoples used the codeword “babies” to refer to ounce quantities of cocaine. The evidence at trial established that Peoples then sold cocaine to his own customers in smaller quantities and used his proceeds to buy expensive cars.

Attempt to Use FBI Investigation of Antioch Police Officers to Defend Himself Denied

According to the judge’s opinion, “In the course of the federal law enforcement investigation in this case, the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (“ATF”) were assisted by officers from the Antioch Police Department in executing search warrants and evidence collection, the bulk of which occurred in 2018 and 2019. Since then, several Antioch police officers have been accused of, and indicted for various crimes, including civil rights violations and wire fraud.” (See related articles here and here)

During the court case, “Peoples insisted that the federal case against the Antioch officers was relevant because two members of the Antioch Police Department accused of misconduct were present at the search of Peoples’ home on April 30, 2019.”

The opinion continued, “The defendants previously filed a discovery motion to compel production of impeachment material related to Antioch police officers who assisted with the DEA and ATF investigation of the defendants in the instant case. That motion was denied.”

“An evidentiary hearing was set to determine threshold matters in relation to the motion. Having  considered the parties’ briefs, witness testimony, and admitted exhibits from the hearing, the government’s motion is granted, and the defendants are prohibited from referencing the federal investigation of any Antioch police officers.”

The opinion provided background to Peoples’ claim and the judge’s denial.

“Anticipating the issue would reappear at trial, the government filed MIL No. 12 to prevent the defendants from referencing Antioch police misconduct in the presence of the jury without first establishing relevance for fear that this would result in undue prejudice to the government. Dkt. (Docket) 489. In response, Peoples suggested that witnesses and the DEA-6 report regarding the search of Peoples’ home, authored by DEA Agent Mikhail Job, identified Antioch officers accused of misconduct as having participated in the April 30, 2019, search of Peoples’ residence.

Shortly before the pretrial conference, Peoples submitted a supplemental opposition to MIL No. 12 with information he and the government had just learned. Dkt. 521. In that supplemental opposition, Peoples contended that Agent Job had identified Antioch Officer Morteza Amiri, who has since been indicted on wire fraud charges and civil rights violations, as having entered Peoples’ residence alone for five to ten minutes along with his police dog after the occupants had been cleared out and before the official search began. Peoples also suggested that Antioch Officer Kyle Smith, who allegedly exchanged racist texts with other Antioch officers, joined the search of Peoples’ home. The government filed a supplemental response contending that Agent Job received erroneous information from the DEA case agents and had mistakenly named the wrong Antioch officers on his DEA-6 report. Dkt. 528. According to the government, Officers Amiri and Smith were not present at the search of Peoples’ home but were participating in the contemporaneous search of Defendant Lorenzo Lee’s residence. At the pretrial conference, the threshold question of whether Amiri was present at the search of Peoples’ home remained unresolved. The only potential relevance of the Antioch officers’ misconduct turned on whether  Amiri and/or Smith were present at Peoples’ residence such that Peoples could infer the police planted evidence.”

Furthermore, “Peoples failed to establish that a jury could reasonably find that Amiri was present at Peoples residence on April 30, 2019 by a preponderance of evidence. At the evidentiary hearing, both sides admitted several witnesses and exhibits, and the government’s evidence was considerably more persuasive. The government’s witnesses included several law enforcement agents who corroborated their version of the events on the day in question. The testimony of two Antioch officers, Kevin Tjahjadi and Brayton Milner, who participated in the search of Peoples’ residence, was particularly persuasive. Both stated unequivocally that neither Amiri nor Smith joined in that search. The Antioch Police Department CAD reports regarding the search of Peoples’ residence further supported this version of events, identifying only Tjahjadi and Milner as the participating officers.”

Torres Garcia, 38, an illegal alien from Mexico, residing in Rio Dell, California, was charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). The evidence at trial showed that Torres Garcia was a Humboldt County drug trafficker, who used the nickname “Guero.” Torres Garcia received methamphetamine shipments on credit from a Fairfield, California-based drug supplier. On August 8, 2018, the Fairfield supplier attempted to send about 18 pounds of methamphetamine—valued at $158,000—to Torres Garcia in Humboldt County. DEA agents and the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office intercepted the drug courier and seized the drugs during a vehicle stop on Highway 101 near Healdsburg, California. In February 2019, the DEA tracked Torres Garcia to a meeting in Windsor, California, where Torres Garcia delivered about $13,800 in cash to a courier for his drug supplier. Although he was present throughout the trial and listened to closing arguments, Torres Garcia absconded before the jury handed down its verdict; he is now a fugitive. (See judge’s opinion)

According to the judge’s opinion, “Luis Garcia-Torres, defendant, an alien who had previously been deported or removed from the United States  to Mexico on or about May 19, 2016, was found in the Eastern District of Texas, said defendant not having received the express consent of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, the successor, pursuant to United States Code, Title 6, for re-application for admission to the United States, all in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).”

Sentencing Hearing June 11, 2024

Judge Seeborg scheduled a sentencing hearing for June 11, 2024. Torres Garcia faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. Martinez Diaz and Peoples each face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for every count on which they were convicted. However, the defendants’ sentences will be imposed only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

This prosecution is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) investigation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Daniel Pastor and Joseph Tartakovsky prosecuted the case with the assistance of Erick Machado. This prosecution is the result of an investigation led by the DEA Oakland Resident Office, with assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Homeland Security Investigations; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Postal Inspection Service; the police departments in Fairfield, Antioch, Concord, and Oakland; the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office; and the California Highway Patrol.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

 

What you need to know about voting in Contra Costa

By Leave a Comment

Official Ballots have been mailed for upcoming Presidential Primary Election

By Dawn Kruger, Civic Outreach/Engagement Specialist, Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department 

Ballots for the March 5th Presidential Primary Election have been mailed to Contra Costa voters.  If you do not receive your ballot by February 20th, call 925-335-7800.

Here’s what you need to know about voting in the upcoming election:

To ensure you receive a ballot in the mail, confirm that you are registered to vote and that your address is correct at MyVotingInformation. After February 20th, registration must be in person at one of the County’s early voting sites, the Elections Division in Martinez, or at a polling place on Election Day. 

No stamp is required to return your ballot!  Great news!  Your return envelope is postage paid.  Just put your completed ballot in the envelope, seal it, sign it, and mail it to us.  Voted ballots returned by mail must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received within seven (7) days after the election to be considered timely. 

You can drop your ballot at one of the County’s 40 Official Drop Boxes. Official drop boxes are ready to receive ballots.  Dropping your ballot at an official drop box is just like dropping it at the Elections Office and saves taxpayer dollars by reducing the cost of return postage. Voters can find the most up to date list of convenient drop-box locations here. Ballots must be dropped off no later than 8:00 p.m. on Election Day.

Be sure your vote is included in the Election Night results– Vote early and mail or drop off your ballot so the Elections Office receives it before Election Day.   

Five regional early voting sites will be open across the County on Friday, Saturday, and Monday leading up to Election Day.  On Election Day, 147 polling locations will be open.  Every voter will be assigned a polling place which will be listed on the back of their Voter Information Guide.  For those who wish to vote in person, you can minimize the time spent waiting by reviewing your ballot options ahead of time and arriving ready to vote.

“Registered Voters in Contra Costa County should all have their Vote By Mail Ballots by now.” said Registrar of Voters, Kristin B. Connelly.  “Our Election team is ready to receive and process ballots and there are many different ways to cast your ballot early.” 

You can track your ballot!  Ballot tracking is a Secretary of State service that will send you notices about your ballot, including when it’s mailed, received, and counted.  Know where your ballot is every step of the way!  Sign up at https://WheresMyBallot.sos.ca.gov.

More information and locations of each voting option can be found on the Contra Costa Elections website or call 925-335-7800.

 

Climate Action California endorses in Contra Costa Assembly, State Senate races

By Leave a Comment

Candidates endorsed by Climate Action California include Jackie Elward in SD3, Dan Kalb in SD7 and Monica Wilson in AD15. Source: CAC

Elward in SD3, Kalb in SD7 and Wilson in AD15

By Chris Thomas, Climate Action California

Climate Action California – the only statewide group basing endorsements for the March primary solely on a candidate’s positions on climate – has announced its endorsements. With more than 7,500 supporters around the state, Climate Action California is endorsing a total of 15 candidates for the California State Assembly and 13 for the State Senate. Climate Action California’s rigorously vetted endorsements assure voters that these candidates are climate champions committed to continuing and expanding California’s clean energy policies and global climate leadership as we work to address the climate crisis. 

Jackie Elward for State Senate District 3

Climate Action California believes Jackie Elward can be counted on to fight the fossil fuel industry in Sacramento—and reach a 100% renewable future as soon as possible. Elward supports California’s 2045 net zero goals and encourages their acceleration, prohibiting natural gas in new building construction, incentives to remove gas infrastructure during retrofits, and ensuring people in impacted sectors have every opportunity for gainful employment in a similar field for a just transition. She also sees protection from climate impacts such as wildfire, extreme heat, drought, and increased flooding in the district as one of her top priorities.

Elward has served the North Bay community as an educator and labor organizer as well as Rohnert Park City Council member (since 2020) and Mayor. She is also a board member for Sonoma Clean Power (Sonoma County’s ground-breaking Community Choice Aggregator for clean energy), the Sonoma County Transportation Authority and the Regional Climate Protection Authority (alternate), Sonoma County Continuum of Care (provider of homeless services), and North Bay Jobs with Justice.

A first-generation immigrant from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Elward has first-hand experience of the disease and devastation wrought by bad environmental policies.

All of Climate Action California’s endorsees – including Jackie Elward – have declared addressing climate change to be among their highest priorities and are committed to bringing about key legislation our state needs in the crucial years ahead.

Senate District 3 includes portions of far Eastern Contra Costa County. Read more about Elward on the CAC website.

Dan Kalb for State Senate District 7

Dan Kalb has spent his entire career as an advocate on climate, environment, and social justice issues and as a public servant, leading efforts to protect our environment and combat climate change. He is now running for an open seat in the state Senate, as Senator Nancy Skinner terms out after 12 years in Sacramento. Skinner, a climate warrior since long before joining the legislature, leaves a legacy of far-sighted climate policies passed into law. California needs an equally committed climate champion in that seat, and Climate Action California is confident that Dan Kalb is the right person for the job.

Kalb has served on the Oakland City Council since 2013, where he’s led the council on climate and environmental issues. His accomplishments include:

  • Requiring divestment of fossil fuel portfolios from city funds
  • Requiring new buildings to be all-electric
  • Banning gas-powered leaf blowers
  • Guiding adoption of Oakland’s equitable climate action plan through the Council
  • Authoring ordinances banning storage and transport of coal through Oakland

Before joining the Oakland City Council, Kalb worked as the California Policy Director for the Union of Concerned Scientists for nine years, leading their efforts to pass early climate legislation in Sacramento. Based on Kalb’s long track record leading decarbonization efforts at the local and state level, Climate Action California is confident Kalb will be one of our strongest voices taking on climate change in the California State Senate.

Janet Cox, Climate Action California CEO, who lives in Dan’s district and has known him for many years, says, “Dan is exactly the kind of committed, focused climate leader we need in Sacramento. I know we’ll be able to count on Dan to take on the tough issues and work with colleagues to pass essential climate measures.” She adds, “Now it’s up to us to get to work to make sure Dan and his fellow endorsees win in March and November. This is how we can keep California moving at the speed and scale necessary to reduce our emissions and bring on the low-carbon economy we need.”

Senate District 7 includes portions of Western Contra Costa County. Read more about Kalb on CAC website.

Monica Wilson for Assembly District 15

In 2012, Monica Wilson was the first African American woman elected to the Antioch City Council, and she is currently serving her fourth term. As a councilwoman, she successfully enacted an ordinance banning oil and gas drilling within Antioch’s city limits. She and the council also voted to end a lease for a natural gas line that runs through Antioch.

Her priorities are:

  • Delivering environmental justice, ensuring access to clean water and air for all communities, especially those disproportionately affected by pollution
  • Meeting California carbon neutrality goals of 100% by 2045
  • Reducing CO2 emissions from the transportation sector
  • Ensuring a just transition from fossil fuels so that the workforce is retrained and the tax base is made whole as a result of the zero carbon transition

Monica was born in Washington, D.C., where her parents marched with Dr. Martin  Luther King, Jr. She grew up in San Rafael, where she was one of the few African American children at her school. For the past two decades, she has served the people of Contra Costa County as a community organizer, nonprofit manager, and leader in the fight for safe neighborhoods and healthy families.

Climate Action California believes that Monica has demonstrated her support for working people and a commitment to playing a role in the fight against climate change.

The climate can’t wait! California must elect climate champions.

Despite Democratic supermajorities in both the assembly and senate, the California legislature has struggled to pass many important climate bills. In 2023 alone, important climate bills addressing pension fund divestment from fossil fuels (SB 252) and bidirectional charging for electric vehicles (SB 233) failed to move out of the legislature. The climate cannot wait while the legislature holds tightly to the status quo. California needs more climate champions in the Assembly and the Senate to take on the climate crisis with the urgency that it deserves.

Assembly District 15 includes portions of Contra Costa County. Read more about Wilson on the CAC website.

Climate Action California (formerly the 350 Silicon Valley legislation/policy team) is a statewide, volunteer-led, 501(c)(4) social welfare organization (EIN 88-4217994). Our members understand the importance of California and our legislative initiatives to the rest of the nation – and the world. Visit our website for the full list. For further information, contact the Climate Action California Elections team at elections@climateactionca.org.