Contra Costa Herald

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

In race for San Ramon mayor incumbent faces two challengers

By Leave a Comment

Mayor Mark Armstrong (center) faces challengers Emma Chigbu (left) and Paschalis Ntatsos in the 2026 election. Sources: City of San Ramon and campaigns.

19-year-old runs to be “the youngest mayor in California history.”

By Allen D. Payton

The incumbent facing re-election this year for San Ramon mayor will run again for another two-year term and face two opponents in the November 3, 2026 Municipal Election. Mayor Mark H. Armstrong is being challenged by 19-year-old student Emma Chigbu and local non-profit organization leader and swim coach Paschalis Ntatsos.

Armstrong Again

According to his bio on the City’s website, Armstrong was initially appointed to the City Council following the 2020 election and elected to his second term in 2022, then elected Mayor in 2024. A California and San Francisco Bay Area native, he has been a resident of San Ramon since 2004.

Armstrong is a Retired Colonel, having served for 30 years as a U.S. Army Infantry Officer in a variety of Army, multi-service, and interagency command and staff assignments in the U.S., Europe, Middle East, Indo-Pacific and Caribbean.

He is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point.

Armstrong later worked for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IX based in Oakland in a variety of response and recovery senior leadership positions including as a Presidentially-appointed Federal Coordinating Officer Cadre.

He has received numerous military awards and decorations including the U.S. Army MacArthur Leadership Award and was also selected as the Military Emergency Manager of the Year by the International Association of Emergency Managers.

Locally, Armstrong has participated in numerous volunteer and speaking activities in San Ramon and the surrounding area. An Eagle Scout himself, he served as an adult leader and Assistant Scoutmaster as his sons progressed through Scouting to earn their Eagle Scout rank.

Armstrong and his wife Brenda have four children who are all graduates of California High School.

His priorities as a councilmember have included Public Safety, Protection (of) Neighborhoods and Open Space, Fiscal Responsibility and Quality of Life.

According to Armstrong’s Candidate Statement, he says, “I support policies that strengthen public safety, preserve our parks and open spaces, support local businesses, and ensure that new development is accompanied by appropriate infrastructure and city services.”

On his campaign website, he shares his platform writing, “As your mayor I will prioritize: Public Safety, Protecting our Neighborhoods and Preserving Open Spaces, Quality of Life (and) Fiscal Accountability.” Armstrong “supports ensuring our Police Department is fully funded, well-trained, and properly equipped” as well as “the city’s plan to focus new housing in the City Center and transit areas.” He is “committed to maintaining…63 parks, miles of trails, community centers, libraries, recreational facilities, and vibrant arts and cultural programs…and ensuring city programs, parks, and facilities continue to serve our growing and diverse community.” Finally, Armstrong says he is “committed to responsible budgeting, long-term planning, and protecting taxpayer dollars.”

Challenger Chigbu

According to her candidate filing documents, Chigbu’s ballot designation is “Student”, and she marked the box that reads, “I do not wish to file a Candidate Statement.” But on her campaign website, Chigbu shared some information about her background writing, “San Ramon has always been my home. When my parents first immigrated from Nigeria to California, they knew San Ramon would be the city that would give their children a strong quality of life. I’ve benefitted first-hand from our exceptional schools, beautiful parks and open spaces, and safe community.

“As a young professional still living in San Ramon, I have witnessed how young families are struggling to live in our beautiful city. City council is not representative of the younger residents of San Ramon. I feel it is my duty to give back to the city that made me who I am. Young families and professionals should have the same opportunities to live here that my family was blessed to have.”

Chigbu’s platform posted on her campaign’s Instagram account includes: preventing overdevelopment, fiscal stability, community engagement and wildfire prevention.

Another Instagram post reads, “Kind of chic to help elect California’s youngest mayor” and written on her website includes the message, “help elect the youngest mayor in California history.” Nowhere on her website or social media does it show Chigbu’s age, what she does for work or her educational information. However, according to fastpeoplesearch.com, she is 19 years old.

San Ramon City Hall. Photo: City of San Ramon

New Ntatsos

Paschalis Ntatsos lists his ballot designation as a Nonprofit Director / CEO and his Candidate Statement shows he moved to San Ramon in 2009. His platform includes a balanced budget, a connected community with “a responsible, accountable and transparent City Hall”, wellness for children and households, and smart, local economic growth and says, “We must keep San Ramon affordable, safe, and financially sound.”

On his campaign website Ntatsos says he “was born and raised in Greece” and offers more of why he’s running writing, “streamlining City Hall and cutting waste…balance a budget…fix our infrastructure, keep our streets safe, and protect the multicultural character.” His Five Priorities are listed as, Put Residents First, Smarter Budgets, Invest in Our Youth, Local Business & New Investment and Support for Our Seniors. His campaign slogan is “People over politics. Accountable to you.”

Ntatsos also shares, “I’m proud of what I’ve built in our sports community and in business.”

According to his LinkedIn profile, he is Founder and CEO of EliteSwim, DBA ElitSwim in San Ramon since 2013 and since Dec. 2022, Founder and Executive Director of ElitSwim Club a year-round competitive USA Swimming Club, 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Ntatsos previously worked as an Age Group Swim Coach for San Ramon Valley Aquatics.

He also served in the Greek Navy, was a member of the Greek National team as a 23-year swimmer and has several honors and awards including: National Record Holder of Greece – 100m Free, 200m Free, Seniors (1996-1999); Gold Medalist in 200m Free, Silver 100m Free, Military World Championship, St. Petersburg, Russia (1995); National Swimmer of the Year, Greece (1996); Olympic Games Torch runner, (1996); and Open Water, Alcatraz Invitational Event, overall 7th place in 2009, and 4th place in 2011 out of 600+ swimmers.

Ntatsos’ education includes a B.A. in Physical Education and Sport Science (BSS) with a major in swimming from the University of Athens, Greece in 1999 and Certified by the American Swimming Coaches Association as a level 5 International Senior coach.

He has also completed three City programs including San Ramon Government 101, and Community / Police and Planning academies.

The election is Tuesday, November 3.

Local teacher Isaiah Mateas runs for Oakley Union Elementary School District Board of Education, Area 4

By Leave a Comment

Isaiah Mateas and campaign art. Source: Mateas campaign

23-year-old “is among the youngest candidates seeking elected office in the region.”

OAKLEY, Calif. — Local educator and lifelong Oakley community member Isaiah Mateas is a candidate for the Oakley Union Elementary School District Board of Education, Area 4, pledging to bring the perspective of a classroom teacher and community advocate to the Board.

Mateas has spent more than nine years working with students in a variety of educational settings, including public schools and juvenile detention programs. Since Aug. 2025, he has been employed as an elementary theatre teacher in Pittsburg Unified School District, where he works with students from pre-school through fifth grade. According to his Linkedin profile, previously Mateas worked as a Staff Supervisor for UCLA Student Affairs full-time from April 2024 to Jan. 2025, Director and Coordinator for UCLA Recreation full-time from June 2023 to July 2024 and from Oct. 2023 to Jan. 2025 he worked part-time as a Visionary Trainer for The Advot Project, which according to the organization’s Facebook page, “prepares youth for success by teaching them communication and relationship skills through the arts.”

Throughout his career, he has focused on creating engaging learning environments, supporting diverse learners and advocating for equitable educational opportunities.

He received a B.A. in Theatre for Directing from UCLA in 2024 with his graduate studies in the Single Subject Credential in 2026 and his M.S. in Education for Curriculum and Instruction at Cal State East Bay in 2027.

“I’ve seen firsthand how the decisions made by a school board directly impact students, teachers, and families,” said Mateas. “I’m running because I want to ensure every student has access to a safe, supportive, and high-quality education while giving educators the tools they need to succeed.”

As the sibling of a student who has received Special Education services within Oakley Union Elementary School District, Mateas says he understands the importance of ensuring every child receives the support they need to thrive. He wants to not only support these populations, but also the teachers and families that help make Oakley shine.

His campaign will focus on four priorities:

  • Expanding student safety and wellness initiatives.
  • Strengthening Special Education programs and outreach to diverse communities.
  • Supporting and retaining high-quality teachers through competitive compensation and professional support.
  • Expanding access to arts education and creative learning opportunities.

At 23 years old, Mateas is among the youngest candidates seeking elected office in the region. He believes that combining fresh perspectives with firsthand classroom experience can help address the evolving needs of today’s students and families.

“Public education is changing rapidly, and our leadership should reflect both experience in today’s classrooms and a genuine commitment to our community,” Mateas said. “I am running to serve, not to build a résumé and to ensure Oakley’s schools continue preparing every child for success.”

The Oakley Union Elementary School District Board of Education election will be held on November 3, 2026.

For more information about Mateas’s campaign email isaiah4ouesd@gmail.com, call (925) 384-0751 or visit campaign Facebook page.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

City of Clayton to hold first of two Town Hall meetings Aug. 26

By Leave a Comment

Source: City of Clayton

Learn about finances, Landscape and Maintenance District

After council placed one-percent sales tax, landscape maintenance assessment measures on November ballot

By City of Clayton

We have a couple of Town Hall meetings coming soon. On August 26 and October 7 (both are Wednesdays), join us from 6-8 pm to learn more about the City of Clayton’s financial picture and the Landscape and Maintenance District.

In June, the Clayton City Council voted unanimously to place a one percent (1%) local sales tax measure on the November ballot as Measure M.

The language reads, “CITY OF CLAYTON SALES TAX MEASURE. To provide local funding to maintain City of Clayton programs, services, and facilities, including: police services, traffic enforcement and road safety, road and sidewalk improvements, enhance library and recreation opportunities, park maintenance, recruitment and retention of city employees and other city services, shall the City of Clayton levy a 1% sales tax until ended by voters generating approximately $1,000,000 annually, subject to public review, the annual audit and all funds benefitting Clayton?”

On July 7, the Council voted unanimously to also place on the November ballot a renewal of the Landscape and Maintenance District as Measure N. The language reads: “CITYWIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EXTENSION AND ALTERATION OF RATE OF EXISTING SPECIAL TAX. Shall the measure to fund on-going trail system operations and maintenance, roadway landscaping, open space weed abatement, and related services of the Clayton Community Facility District No. 2007-1 (Citywide Landscape Maintenance) by extending the special tax for ten years and amending its rate and method of apportionment of the special tax to $354.54/year per residential and $354.54/acre per non-residential parcels, for FYs 2027-2037, including annual inflationary adjustments to the special tax rates not to exceed 3% per year, and subject to continued citizen’s committee oversight, be approved?”

In City Manager Kris Loftus’ August Newsletter he wrote, “Like many California communities, Clayton faces rising costs, aging infrastructure, increasing service demands, and limited revenue growth. These challenges require responsible financial decisions and careful stewardship of public resources. Our focus remains on maintaining essential services, investing in infrastructure, and ensuring the City’s long-term financial sustainability.”

To learn more before the meeting, check out the City Manager’s Newsletters on our website – https://www.claytonca.gov/317/City-Manager-Newsletter.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Only one challenger in Martinez council races

By Leave a Comment

Martinez incumbent District 1 Councilman Jay Howard will face challenger Nakenya Allen in the November election. Photos: City of Martinez and Allen for Council campaign website.

Mayor, one councilmember face no opposition

By City of Martinez

The nomination period for the November 2026 City election has officially closed. The following candidates have qualified:

Mayor: Brianne Zorn (incumbent)

District 1: Jay Howard (incumbent) and Nakenya Allen

District 4: Debbie McKillop (incumbent)

With the Mayor and District 4 seats uncontested, the City Council will discuss election options for these two offices at the next City Council meeting. The Council may either appoint the nominated candidates in lieu of holding an election, or have the election proceed as scheduled, in accordance with California Elections Code Section 10229. Savings associated with appointment rather than an election for these two seats are between $55,000 – $80,000 of City funds. The District 1 race will continue as planned on November 3, 2026, regardless of how the Mayor and District 4 seats are handled.

Community members are encouraged to attend and share feedback at the meeting on Wednesday, August 19th at 7:00 pm.

Martinz Mayor Brianne Zorn and District 4 Councilwoman Debbie McKillip face no opposition for re-election. Photos: City of Martinez

About the Incumbents and Challenger

According to her bio on the City’s website, Zorn is currently serving in her first term as mayor and “was elected to the Martinez City Council as Councilmember for District 3 in November 2020, and as Mayor in November 2022.”

According to her bio, McKillop is currently serving in her third term and “was elected to the Martinez City Council in 2014 and served as Vice Mayor in 2017, 2021, and 2024.”

According to his official bio, Howard is running for re-elect and “was elected Councilmember in November 2022. He is the third generation of his family to be born and raised in the Alhambra Valley. Since 2014, Jay has been the Superintendent for G Swanson Construction. He is very active in the community where he serves as a board member for the Nor Cal Carpenters Regional Council, Union Local 152, Loaves and Fishes, the Historical Society, and serves as a delegate to the Carpenter’s Regional Council (spanning 46 counties). Jay lives in Martinez with his lovely wife and two children. When he has some downtime, he is an avid hiker and enjoys extreme skiing.”

According to her campaign website, Allen says about herself, “I am a longtime Martinez resident, community organizer, proud mother, and dedicated advocate for a safer, more inclusive city. I hold a degree in Veterinary Technology and loved the time I spent working in animal hospitals and shelters, rescuing and rehoming pets. When I became a mother to a son who is medically sensitive with severe special needs, my priorities shifted profoundly. I now focus on his health and well-being, while working to build a community where every resident is valued, supported, and given the opportunity to thrive. In my rare moments of free time, I enjoy practicing Muay Thai and making my own holistic hair products.”

Allen is Vice President and District 5 Ambassador for the Contra Costa County Commission for Women and Girls, a member of the County’s Family and Children’s Trust (FACT) Committee, and a member of the National Council of Negro Women (NCNW) of Contra Costa County.

The election is Nov. 3rd.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Coalition opposing November Bay Area transit tax files lawsuit claiming bias in ballot language, impartial analysis

By 3 Comments

Left graphic source: CABAT

Says “the District Board wrote the RTM Ballot Question…in a way that is intentionally confusing or misleading to voters.”

By Allen D. Payton

The Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit (CABAT) organized to oppose the Regional Transit Measure (RTM) on the November ballot filed a lawsuit, Monday, against Election Officials in the five included counties and Kimberly Ward, the Public Transit Revenue Measure District Elections Official. If approved by voters, the tax measure, known as Connect Bay Area Transit, will raise a half-cent in four of the five counties, including Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo and one-cent in San Francisco County for 14 years and raise an estimated $17 billion.

Labeled a VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, the lawsuit was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court by 10 petitioners including former State Senator Quentin L. Kopp, Gregg A. Diéguez, President of CABAT and Director of Sustainability for SHIFT Bay Area, and Marc Joffe, President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, as well as Brian Holtz, Thomas Rubin and five others listed as individuals and electors in the Public Transit Revenue Measure District.

Kopp is also President of the San Francisco Taxpayers Association; Holtz is President of the Purissima Hills Water District Board of Directors in Santa Clara County and Secretary and Treasurer of the Libertarian Party of Santa Clara County; and Rubin is Vice President of the Alameda County Taxpayers Association, Inc.

Attorney Jason Bezis of Lafayette is representing them.

The District was formed to oversee the process for the transit tax measure. (See related article) According to the Fact Sheet for SB 63: Connect Bay Area Act, a separate oversight committee will be formed “to confirm money distribution follows the SB 63 expenditure plan” should the measure pass.

The lawsuit was filed before “the final printing deadline date” of “Friday, August 28, 2026, by which all ballot language and County Voter Information Guides (CVIG) materials must be finalized, including resolving any legal challenges in court.”

Transit Officials Were Warned But Did It Anyway

According to Joffe, “Transit officials cannot claim they were blindsided. On the night of July 23, 2026, the eve of the board’s special meeting, attorney Bezis sent a detailed pre-litigation demand letter urging the board not to approve the question as drafted.  The letter was acknowledged multiple times and the measure was placed on the ballot with the slanted wording anyway.”

Lawsuit cover page. Source: CABAT

Legal Claims

The lawsuit “challenges biased, not neutral, untrue, partial, argumentative, and/or prejudicial wording in the RTM Ballot Question (also called ‘ballot label’ or ‘statement of the measure’) in violation of the Elections Code sections 9051(e) and 13119(c) standards and false and/or misleading wording in the RTM Ballot Question under the Elections Code section 9380/McDonough v. Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1169 (‘McDonough’) standard. This lawsuit also challenges the Impartial Analysis authored by real party in interest DISTRICT Counsel KATHLEEN KANE as false, misleading, and/or not impartial in violation of Elections Code section 9380.”

The petitioners “seek a writ of mandate to compel amendment of the ballot question (also known as ‘ballot label’ or ‘statement of the measure’) and the impartial analysis that Respondents COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICIALS and Ms. WARD are preparing for voter use in the Regional Transit Measure (‘RTM’) election to be held on November 3, 2026.”

Further, the lawsuit claims, “Petitioners assert that the DISTRICT and DISTRICT BOARD wrote the RTM Ballot Question…in a way that is intentionally confusing or misleading to voters.”

Current Ballot Language

The lawsuit explains, “As approved by the PTRMD BOARD at its July 24, 2026 meeting, the RTM Ballot Question (see District Resolution No. 2 Page 7) currently reads:

‘To prevent major service cuts to BART and other transit, avoid increased traffic, and reduce pollution by: Preserving BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit for everyone, including workers, students, seniors, persons with disabilities; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness, affordability, reliability; Repairing targeted roads/potholes; Requiring financial transparency, oversight, accountability; shall the measure enacting a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties), and 1% (San Francisco) sales tax for 14 years generating approximately $980,000,000 annually, be adopted?’”

Challenges & Proposed Changes

However, the petitioners claim the adopted ballot language does not comply with state Elections Code and the amount is incorrect and should instead be $1.2 million per year. They claim the statement of the measure is not “a true and impartial synopsis of the purpose of the proposed measure,” is “argumentative” and “likely to create prejudice for or against the measure,” and that the “RTM Ballot question is inherently prejudicial” based on a survey MTC conducted last year. Furthermore, the petitioners “argue that components of the RTM Ballot Question are false and/or misleading.”

They want to make the following changes:

  • Amend the phrase “Preserving BART …” to read “Funding BART …”
  • Delete the phrase “for everyone, including workers, students, seniors, persons with disabilities”.
  • Delete the phrase “To prevent major service cuts to BART and other transit”.
  • Alternatively, strike the word “major” in the phrase “To prevent major service cuts …”
  • Delete the phrase “avoid increased traffic”.
  • Delete the phrase “reduce pollution”.
  • Strike the phrase “/potholes”.
  • Amend “Repairing targeted roads” to read “Repaving transit-served roads”.
  • Strike the words “affordability, reliability”.
  • Amend “enacting” to read “imposing”.
  • Amend the phrase “sales tax” to read “sales and use tax”.
  • Strike the word “oversight” in the phrase “Requiring … oversight”.
  • Strike the word “accountability” in the phrase “Requiring … accountability”.
  • Amend “$980,000,000 annually” (September 2025 estimate) to an updated number (an August 2026 estimate) or “$1,200,000,000 annually” (September 2025 estimates, averaged over 14 years).

Alternative Ballot Language

The lawsuit offers the following ballot language alternatives:

“If the Court were to order all of the amendments and corrections suggested by Petitioners supra, the RTM Ballot Question would read:

‘Funding BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness; Repaving transit-serving roads; Requiring financial transparency; shall the measure imposing a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties) and 1% (San Francisco) sales and use tax for 14 years generating approximately $1,200,000,000 annually, be adopted?’”

The lawsuit further reads, “If the Court were to order all of the amendments and corrections suggested by Petitioners supra, including use of the ‘Shall the measure … be adopted?’ format, the RTM Ballot Question would read:

‘Shall the measure imposing a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties) and 1% (San Francisco) sales and use tax for 14 years generating approximately $1,200,000,000 annually; Funding BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness; Repaving transit-serving roads; Requiring financial transparency; be adopted?’”

The petitioners also claim the “RTM Impartial Analysis is partial, false, and/or misleading” and that it should be written by either the California Attorney General, a county counsel or district attorney instead of Kathleen Kane who is he legal counsel for the District.

“Supporters of the Transit Measure need to use misleading advertising because voters won’t pass the measure if they have the real story that it is a regressive tax falling hardest on seniors and low-income families for 14 years,” Dieguez stated.

“Voters deserve the honest description the law guarantees them, and if the district won’t provide it, a court should,” Joffe added.

See the Public Transit Revenue Measure District’s Legal Counsel RTM Impartial Analysis.

See RTM Ballot Question Lawsuit Aug 17

For more information about CABAT visit Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit.

The election is Tuesday, Nov. 3.

Public Transit Revenue Measure District formed, governed by MTC Board

By 1 Comment

Photo, agency & map graphics: MTC

To oversee process for Bay Area transit tax on Nov. ballot

By Metropolitan Transportation Commission

OAKLAND, CA – Updated Aug. 17, 2026 – The Public Transit Revenue Measure District (PTRMD) was established under Government Code Title 7.85, by Senate Bill 63 (2025), which also authorizes a regional transportation revenue measure to be placed on the November 2026 ballot, known as the Connect Bay Area Transit Initiative.

District Members

The Public Transit Revenue Measure District is comprised of the same individuals that govern the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).

The PTRMD on Jan. 16, 2026, received a notice of intent from the Connect Bay Area Transit Committee to place a citizen’s initiative on the November 2026 ballot. Senate Bill 63, authored by state senators Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Jesse Arreguín of Berkeley, authorized a qualified voter initiative to impose a retail transactions and use tax ordinance applicable to the entire district for a duration of 14 years, in an amount of 0.5% in each of the counties located within the district and 1% in the City and County of San Francisco, subject to voter approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election.

On July 1, 2026, the District Elections Official issued a Certificate to Initiative Petition, certifying that proponents of the Connect Bay Area Transit Initiative submitted sufficient valid signatures for the measure to qualify for placement on the ballot.

The District at its July 24, 2026, meeting formally approved a resolution accepting the District Elections Official’s certification of the Connect Bay Area Transit initiative measure and requesting the Boards of Supervisors in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties to call a special election on the measure and to consolidate this special election with the November 3, 2026, statewide general election.

Impartial Analysis of Regional Transit Measure 

Legal counsel for the Public Transit Revenue Measure District has prepared an impartial analysis of the  Regional Transit Measure pursuant to subdivision (d) of Government Code 67740. This text will also be included in each county’s voter information guide per state law.

Notices of Election Provided by Santa Clara County

Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters provided the following notices of election:

Election-Related Deadlines 

Established election dates related to the measure can be found on the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters (ROV) website. Please reference the most recently published Public Transit Revenue Measure District (PTRMD) calendars, which may be accessed at the SantaClaraCounty.gov website.  If you are unable to access the link, please contact the Santa Clara County ROV directly for assistance.

Staff Contact

Kimberly Ward, District Elections Official
Phone: 415-778-5367
Email: kward@bayareametro.gov

請求協助! | ¡Solicita ayuda! | Request assistance! 

您是否需要我們翻譯其中一份文件的內容? 您是否需要大字體或盲文印刷的書面資料? 您是否需要手語或您所說語言的口譯服務才能參與?

如需協助，請致電 (415) 778-6757。若需使用 TDD 或為聽障人士，請致電 711，加州轉接服務，或 (800) 735-2929 (TTY) ，(800) 735-2922 (語音)，然後要求轉接至(415) 778-6700。請至少提前三個工作日提出申請，以便我們能為您提供適當的安排。

¿Necesita que alguno de nuestros documentos sea traducido? ¿Necesita nuestras comunicaciones escritas en letra grande o en Braille? ¿Necesita un intérprete del lenguaje de señas o un intérprete que hable su idioma para poder participar?

Para solicitar asistencia, por favor llamemos al (415) 778-6757. Para telecomunicaciones para personas sordas y discapacitadas, favor de llamar al 711, el Servicio de Retransmisión de California (CRS) para TTY/VCO/HCO a Voz o para Voz a TTY/VCO/HCO al (800) 855-3000 y pedir que lo conecten al (415) 778-6700. Necesitamos aviso de al menos tres días hábiles de anticipación para proporcionar la asistencia adecuada.

Do you need one of our documents translated? Do you need written materials in large type or in Braille? Do you need a sign language interpreter or an interpreter who speaks your language in order to participate?

To request accommodation, please call (415) 778-6757. For TDD or hearing impaired, call 711, California Relay Service, or (800) 735-2929 (TTY), (800) 735-2922 (voice) and ask to be relayed to (415) 778-6700. We require at least three working days’ notice to accommodate requests.

For more information visit Public Transit Revenue Measure District.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

 

Steve Hilton brings his campaign for California governor to Brentwood for fundraiser

By 3 Comments

Steve Hilton shares about his campaign for California governor at a fundraiser in Brentwood in Eastern Contra Costa County on Tuesday, August 11, 2026. Photos by Allen D. Payton

Calls Delta tunnel “completely ridiculous”; will make first $150 grand of residents’ income tax free

By Allen D. Payton

Steve Hilton, the Republican candidate for governor of California, stopped in Brentwood on Tuesday, Aug. 11th, and shared about his campaign platform during a fundraiser. He specifically addressed a concern to Eastern Contra Costa County residents when he stated his opposition to the proposed and planned tunnel to move more water south, known as the Delta Conveyance. (See related articles here and here)

In answering a question from Discovery Bay Town Councilwoman Carolyn Graham, Hilton called it a “scheme” and said, “it seems to me like another high-speed rail” which he also opposes. “I think it’s completely ridiculous and I’m totally, dead against it and will do everything in my power to stop it,” Hilton exclaimed.

The event was held at the McCauley Estate Vineyards, hosted by the McCauley and Billheimer families and catered by Lavish Grazing. Prior to the main event, a VIP reception with the candidate was held for those who contributed additional funds, where he autographed copies of his book entitled, Califailure.

Hilton autographs his book, Califailure and speaks with VIP guests at a pre-reception to the fundraiser on Aug. 11, 2026.

Shares About Campaign Platform

After being introduced by Contra Costa Republican Party Central Committee District 3 Chair and the campaign’s Contra Costa Volunteer Director Pamela Neitte-Garcia, Hilton shared a new part of his platform that he just announced that day. He said, “Your first $150 grand tax free” meaning no state income tax on the first $150,000 Californians earn each year. It will cost the state budget $20 billion he later shared.

“That means cutting spending. You can only cut taxes if you cut spending,” Hilton stated.

“Do you know what they’ve done to the budget of California in the last 10 years?” he asked. “It actually more than doubled. Ten years ago, the budget was $170 billion. The one that Newsom just signed off…$350 billion.”

“Is everything twice as good?” Hilton asked. “Don’t tell me we can’t find some savings to go with those tax cuts.”

“We’re calling it Operation Zero Waste,” he continued. “The best way to help people with the cost of living is to get more money in their pocket. Right? Well, what’s the quickest, most direct, simple, way of getting more money in people’s pockets? The government to take less out in the first place.”

East County veterans leader J.R. Wilson speaks with Steve Hilton during the fundraiser Aug. 11, 2026.

Hilton then shared how he would cut spending.

“Number one, cancel high-speed rail,” he stated to cheers and a loud round of applause. “That is $4 billion, right there.”

“It’s a fiasco of epic proportions,” Hilton added. “We’re going to shut it down and stop it in its tracks. Except they haven’t laid any tracks,” which garnered laughter from the attendees.

“Secondly, no more free health care for illegal immigrants,” he stated, next. “That will save $11 billion.”

“Next, we’re going to cancel the vanity projects…all this stuff is so much bloat in this budget,” Hilton continued. “We’re going to shut down the non-profit scam and rip-off.”

“We’re going to shut down the homeless industrial complex where billions of dollars are going into these apartment units for homeless people at about a million dollars each,” he stated.

“We’re going to be doing a very modest, five percent efficiency saving across all government departments in Sacramento,” Hilton shared. “That’s $18 billion, right there. We’re over the twenty billion already.”

He then mentioned his final cost saving proposal of reducing the number of “bureaucrats in Sacramento,” which increased by 40,000 people during Newsom’s terms.

“We’re going to take the headcount right down, back to where it was,” Hilton stated. “We’re basically at thirty-seven billion and we haven’t even had to try very hard.”

“So, there’s no question we will find that money to deliver what we need, especially for working people in California,” he said. “We’ve done the work. I’ve been at this for a long time.”

Hilton mentioned his latest campaign slogan of, “Enough is enough.”

Steve Hiton speaks from the McCauley Estate Vineyards in a video on his X account Aug. 11, 2026. Video screenshot.

He also touched on the other planks of his campaign platform under what he calls “Califordable” which were displayed on a banner, including $3.00 per gallon gas, cut utility bills in half and starter homes for young families. In response to a question about education, Hilton shared briefly about part of what he calls the “Califuture” portion of his campaign platform showing another of the large banners in the room with the list. It read, “Every Student Reads by 3rd Grade” and “Skills Training in Every School.” The list also included, “Bust the $745 Billion Job-Killer Bloat” and “Abolish $800 Small Business Tax.”

Hilton concluded by saying he wants “to make California the best place of anywhere in the world to start and raise a family, to start and grow a business. That’s California and we will be back.”

In a video of the candidate posted on his personal X account the next morning recorded at the McCauley Estate Vineyard following the event he said, “Alright everyone. I know you think of wine country as Napa and Sonoma. But look at this. Beautiful vines. It’s so mellow. Lovely evening. We’ve had an event here in Brentwood, Contra Costa County. You don’t think of that when you think of wine. But we’ve had a wonderful time, and this is what it’s all about. Every part of our state, every business, every family, we’re here for you to save our beautiful state of California. Please join us.”

For more information about Hilton’s campaign visit https://stevehiltonforgovernor.com. His next event in the county will be another fundraiser at the Blackhawk Country Club on Sept. 2. For details call (916) 849-1546 or email julie@stevehiltonforgovernor.com.

Hilton faces Democrat Xavier Becerra in the General Election on November 3rd.

CA State Senate rewrite of “sex offender” bill still allows predators to run for office

By Leave a Comment

Photos by CA Family Council

Vote in Senate as early as Thursday

New language by Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee chaired by Senator Scott Wiener also exempts crimes against disabled victims and, in some cases, children under 14.

WARNING: Graphic content

By California Family Council

SACRAMENTO, CA — AB 2691, the Public Trust Protection Act, could be voted on the Senate floor as soon as tomorrow morning, Thursday, Aug. 13, 2026. On August 4, the bill’s authors quietly rewrote its central definition. They did not fix the problem California Family Council (CFC) raised in June. They made it bigger, and harder to see.

Background

AB 2691, authored by Assemblywoman Dawn Addis (D-Dawn Addis), passed the Assembly floor 67 to 0. It would bar people convicted of felony sexual assault or human trafficking from holding public office, a policy CFC supports. On June 24, the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee, chaired by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), added language exempting felony sodomy, oral copulation and sexual penetration when the victim is a minor age 14 to 17.

CFC Vice President Greg Burt testified against that exemption on June 30 and asked the committee to restore the bill to the form the Assembly passed unanimously. The committee advanced the bill anyway, 4 to 1, with only Senator Steven Choi (R-Irvine) voting no.

What Changed on August 4, and How California’s Sex Offender Registry Actually Works

The named exemption for ages 14 to 17 is gone from the bill text. In its place, Addis rewrote the bill to define “sexual assault” using California’s sex offender registration system, and only the most severe part of it.

California sorts every registerable sex offense into one of three tiers, based on how serious the offense is:

  • Tier 1 requires registration for 10 years. It covers misdemeanor sex offenses and the least serious felony sex offenses.
  • Tier 2requires registration for 20 years. It covers felony sex offenses that state law separately classifies as “serious” or “violent”, along with a short list of specifically named crimes.
  • Tier 3 requires registration for life. It is reserved for the most serious sex crimes: forcible rape, forcible sodomy, aggravated sexual assault of a child, and similar offenses.

Under the bill the Assembly passed, a felony conviction under any of six penal code sections covering rape, sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration disqualified a candidate, full stop. Under the August 4 rewrite, a conviction only disqualifies a candidate if it happens to fall into Tier 3 of the sex registry list. A conviction that falls into Tier 1 or Tier 2, no matter how serious the underlying crime actually was, no longer counts.

That single change does not narrow the original exemption. It widens it.

  • Crimes against minors age 14 to 17 remain exempted. The specific carve-out is gone by name, but the conduct it covered, non-forcible sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration of a 14-to-17-year-old, is a Tier 1 offense. It still falls outside the bill’s new definition.
  • Sex crimes against disabled victims are now exempted. Non-forcible sodomy and sexual penetration of a victim who cannot legally consent because of a mental disorder or a developmental or physical disability are Tier 2 offenses and fall below the bill’s new threshold.
  • Under certain circumstances, so do sex crimes against children under 10. A first-time, non-forcible conviction for molesting a child under 14, which includes children under 10, is a Tier 2 offense and no longer disqualifies a candidate under the bill’s new language, unless the act specifically involved intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or penetration, which remain covered under a separate, Tier 3 statute.

“We asked this Assemblywoman Addis in June to send this bill back to the form the Assembly passed unanimously. Instead, she took the exemption we objected to, deleted the sentence that named it, and buried the same result inside a much bigger loophole,” said CFC Vice President Burt. “Sex crimes against 14 to 17-year-olds are still exempted. Now sex crimes against people with disabilities are exempted too. And under the right circumstances, so is molesting a child under 14. This bill was supposed to keep sex offenders out of public office. As written, it tells some of them they’re still welcome to run.”

Call to Action

The Senate could vote on AB 2691 as early as tomorrow morning. California Family Council urges senators to vote no on the bill as currently written and urges Californians to contact their state senator today.

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.

APPENDIX: Affected Crimes, With Penal Code Citations

This list is limited to items independently confirmed against the text of Penal Code section 290, subdivisions (d)(1) through (d)(3), and Penal Code section 667.5(c). Additional items appear in supplemental research from a California State Senate office; those are not included here pending independent confirmation.

No Longer Disqualifying: Tier 1 Offenses (10-Year Registration)

Penal Code 286(b) — sodomy, non-forcible, victim under 18

Penal Code 287(b), or former 288a(b) — oral copulation, non-forcible, victim under 18

Penal Code 289(h) and (i) — sexual penetration by foreign object, non-forcible, victim under 18

Penal Code 289.5 — fleeing to California to avoid prosecution or custody for a registerable sex offense committed in another state (misdemeanor)

No Longer Disqualifying: Tier 2 Offenses (20-Year Registration)

Penal Code 285 — incest

Penal Code 286(g) — sodomy of a victim who cannot legally consent due to a mental disorder or a developmental or physical disability

Penal Code 286(c)(1) — sodomy of a victim under 14, where the offender is more than 10 years older, without force

Penal Code 288(a) — a lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14, first offense, without force. This is California’s basic child molestation statute.

Penal Code 288.3 — contacting a minor with intent to commit a felony, specifically when the underlying intent was to violate 286(b), 287(b), or 289(h)/(i)

Penal Code 289(b) — sexual penetration of a victim who cannot legally consent due to a mental disorder or a developmental or physical disability

Penal Code 647.6 — annoying or molesting a child, second or subsequent offense

Still Disqualifying: Tier 3 Offenses (Lifetime Registration)

Penal Code 236.1(c) — human trafficking of a minor for a commercial sex act

Penal Code 266h(b) — aggravated pimping of a minor

Penal Code 266i(b) — aggravated pandering of a minor

Penal Code 266j — procuring a child under 16 for a lewd act

Penal Code 269 — aggravated sexual assault of a child

Penal Code 286(c)(2) and (d) — forcible sodomy of a child under 14, including in concert

Penal Code 287(c) and (d), or former 288a — forcible oral copulation of a child under 14, including in concert

Penal Code 288(b) — a lewd act on a child under 14 committed by force

Penal Code 288(c) — a lewd act on a 14- or 15-year-old, where the offender is at least 10 years older

Penal Code 288.2 — sending harmful matter to a minor with intent to seduce, felony

Penal Code 288.3 — contacting a minor with intent to commit a felony, except when the intent was to violate 286(b), 287(b), or 289(h)/(i)

Penal Code 288.5 — continuous sexual abuse of a child

Penal Code 288.7 — sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual penetration with a child age 10 or younger

Penal Code 289(a) — forcible sexual penetration

Penal Code 653f(c) — soliciting another person to commit rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or a lewd act on a child

A felony sentenced to a mandatory life term under Penal Code 667.61 (“One Strike” law)

Designation as a habitual sex offender under Penal Code 667.71

A second, separately tried conviction under Penal Code 288(a)

Sources: California Penal Code section 290, subdivisions (d)(1) through (d)(3), and Penal Code section 667.5(c), both available at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.

Candidate filing period now open for November General Election

By Leave a Comment

County Board of Education, College Board, city councils, school boards, special districts

By Dawn Kruger, Community and Media Relations Coordinator, Contra Costa County, Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department 

The Candidate Filing Period for the November 3rd General Election will began, Monday, July 13, 2026, and nomination papers will be available for candidates running for office. The nomination period runs through 5:00 p.m. Friday, August 7, 2026.

A list of offices anticipated for the election can be found here: www.contracostavote.gov/wp-content/uploads/26Nov03_PositionsUpForElection.pdf.  Offices on this list are subject to change as resolutions are still being filed.

Papers for offices that are up for election will be available at the Contra Costa Elections Office, 555 Escobar Street, Martinez. Papers for Municipal Offices will be available from the City Clerk’s office in the city the position represents.

For further information on the General Election and key dates, go to www.contracostavote.gov

“Our Candidate Services team is ready to work with Candidates who will be running in the November General Election,” said Kristin B. Connelly, Contra Costa Registrar of Voters. “Candidate Filing begins Monday July 13 and our office is here to help potential candidates.”

If an incumbent does not file to run for office by the August 7th deadline, the filing period for that office will extend until 5:00 pm on Wednesday, August 12, 2026. This rule does not apply to incumbents that have reached their term limit and are unable to run again.

Interested candidates can schedule an appointment by emailing candidate.services@vote.cccounty.us or by calling (925) 335-7800. Walk-ins are accepted, but service is subject to the availability of staff. Appointments are available on weekdays from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. Filing documents and information will be provided to interested constituents at their appointment. The process takes approximately 20 minutes.

Five-county coalition launches campaign against $14 billion+ Bay Area transit tax

By Leave a Comment

Photo: MTC

Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit demands transit agencies address waste, alternative funding sources, and non-binding oversight loopholes before locking in a 14-year tax hike.

WALNUT CREEK, CA — A five-county coalition of taxpayer advocates, transit reformers and civic leaders today announced Monday, July 6, 2026, a campaign to defeat the regional transit sales tax slated for the November ballot. The newly formed Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit warns that the 14-year measure will push total sales tax rates up to or over a crushing 11 percent in nine Bay Area cities across Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties.

Authorized by SB 63 (Wiener, 2025), the measure seeks to raise sales taxes by a half-percent in four counties and a full one percent in San Francisco. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) projects the tax, at inception, will extract roughly $1 billion annually from the local economy and rising with inflation to surpass $14 billion over its term. This funding would come on top of the estimated $6 billion in tax and toll subsidies regional transit operators already receive each year.

Campaign organizers highlighted a strategic maneuver by the tax’s proponents, who utilized a citizens’ initiative route rather than having the MTC or transit districts place it on the ballot directly. This path lowers the voter approval threshold from the standard two-thirds supermajority to a simple majority.

“Bay Area voters are being asked to approve more than $14 billion in new taxes at a time when transit agencies are carrying fewer riders and receiving enormous subsidies,” said Marc Joffe, President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association and campaign committee member. “Before squeezing working families and seniors with sales tax rates of over 11 percent in some Bay Area cities and over 10 percent in many others, these agencies must explain why administrative overhead surged since 2019.”

“This measure locks taxpayers into an obsolete, pre-pandemic transit cost structure for 14 years, entirely ignoring how remote work and convenient, emerging transportation alternatives are reshaping regional mobility at no taxpayer expense,” said Gregg Dieguez of SHIFT-Bay Area, representing San Mateo County. “Furthermore, the oversight language in SB 63 is completely non-binding. It allows these agencies to continue wasteful business-as-usual operations with a guaranteed, unaccountable blank check.”

The committee emphasizes that defeating the measure will not shut down public transit. Instead, the coalition argues that the state should redirect a portion of the $1 billion annual cap-and-invest funds currently flowing to high-speed rail. They also propose pausing the region’s two largest capital megaprojects—BART’s Silicon Valley Phase II extension and Caltrain’s Portal downtown extension—to free up existing state and local dollars directly for operations while a leaner funding mechanism is designed for 2028. The committee notes that BART could potentially save hundreds of millions annually through targeted management actions alone, adding that the San Jose VTA does not require this funding for operations, labeling the measure a fiscal “hidden ball trick” to cover a bloated BART extension recently criticized by the Santa Clara County Grand Jury.

The Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit is actively recruiting volunteers, distributing lawn signs beginning in August, and accepting contributions at transitaccountability.com. The campaign website features a localized household tax calculator where residents across all five counties can instantly check the tax’s impact on their family.

About the Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit

The Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit (CABAT) is a campaign committee sponsored by the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, a nonpartisan civic organization founded in 1937 and based in Walnut Creek. The committee has leadership and representation from all five counties affected by the so-called Connect Bay Area Transit sales tax:  Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. Contributions to the committee are not tax-deductible. The committee expects to amend its formal name to incorporate the official alphanumeric ballot designation of the “Connect Bay Area Transit” measure once assigned by election officials.