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

Contra Costa Herald

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

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

State Senate Election Committee Chair Glazer calls for recall system reform

September 17, 2021 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Senator Glazer calls it “broken” in spite of only two recalls of governor in state history; joins Assembly member Berman; Assembly Election Committee Chair to hold hearings to examine needed changes in wake of recently concluded recall election

By Steven Harmon, Policy Analyst/Communications, Office of Sen. Steve Glazer

State Senator Steve Glazer (D-7-Orinda)

Sacramento – Following Tuesday night’s recall election of the governor, only the second one to qualify for the ballot in state history, the California Legislature’s two leading members on election issues on Wednesday announced a coordinated effort to examine reforms to California’s recall election system.

Senator Steve Glazer (D – Contra Costa) and Assemblymember Marc Berman (D – Menlo Park) and said they are determined to fix a broken system in the wake of the 2021 gubernatorial recall election, which raised questions about whether a system designed in the early 20th century has enough checks and balances to ensure democratic and fair elections.

Berman, Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Elections, and Glazer, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments, will hold a series of bipartisan joint hearings in the coming months to begin a statewide discussion regarding potential improvements to California’s recall laws. The intent is to produce a proposal that will be taken up in the Legislature during the 2022 legislative session.

“Now that the recall is over, I believe it is time to re-evaluate and update California’s recall process,” said Senator Glazer.  “The voters want to see a more democratic process put in place that keeps elected officials accountable but, prevents political gamesmanship of the rules.  We hope to work with policy experts and stakeholders of different political perspectives on a viable solution that ultimately makes sense for a modern-day California.”

The recall process is one of four ways the state’s voters can have direct impact on the legislative and governing process, which also include electing representatives, as well as the referendum and initiative. (See CA Constitution Article II) Under the leadership of then Gov. Hiram Johnson came into office proposing the three major populist changes, bringing direct democracy to California. According to Ballotpedia, “Johnson and the new Progressive majority in the legislature made the most sweeping governmental changes ever seen in the history of California. Among these were the introduction of initiative, referendum, and recall at both the state and local levels. Voters ratified these amendments in a special election on October 10, 1911.”

At that time, Johnson said, “they do give to the electorate the power of action when desired, and they do place in the hands of the people the means by which they may protect themselves.”

According to the Secretary of State’s website, “Since 1913, there have been 179 recall attempts of state elected officials in California. Eleven recall efforts collected enough signatures to qualify for the ballot and of those, the elected official was recalled in six instances.” Of those 179, 55 were attempted recalls of the governor, two qualified for the ballot, Grey Davis and Newsom, and only Davis was successfully recalled.

The committees will evaluate recall laws in other states, and will invite experts to examine California’s recall process, including issues such as grounds for removal; signature gathering requirements; process of succession if a governor is recalled; and other issues. The process will be open to the public in an effort to maintain the utmost transparency, and the committees also hope to include the expertise of elections officials, political scientists, legal experts, and others.

“While the recall is an important tool for voters to address misconduct or corruption by elected officials, yesterday’s election highlighted the fundamentally undemocratic nature of California’s existing recall process,” said Assemblymember Berman. “California law should not allow someone else to be recalled and replaced by a candidate who receives far fewer votes. I look forward to hearing from a bipartisan group of experts about how California’s recall process should be reformed.”

Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins said that she supports examining recall reform.

“A thorough review of California’s recall law is timely and worthy of debate, and I would like to thank Senator Glazer and Assemblymember Berman for spearheading the efforts to start this important conversation,” Atkins said.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon said, “It is totally appropriate to begin discussion of reforming the recall process. We came far too close to having a governor elected by a tiny fraction of eligible voters. While that is no way to pick the leader of the most populous state in the nation, it would be equally wrong to make any changes without a thorough study of alternatives. I look forward to hearing the discussion.”

The recall process was adopted in California almost 110 years ago but, has been used sparingly for most of the state’s history. More than 70% of the attempts to recall elected state officials that have qualified for the ballot, including the only two statewide recall elections in California history, have occurred in the last 27 years. Each of California’s last nine Governors has faced multiple recall attempts, though only two of those attempts have qualified for the ballot.

Two recent polls, conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California and by the Institute of Government Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, have found that a majority of voters favor keeping but reforming the recall process.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

Filed Under: Legislation, News, State of California

CA Attorney General announces $575 million settlement with Sutter Health on anti-competitive practices allegations

August 30, 2021 By Publisher Leave a Comment

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta Friday, August 27 lauded Judge Massullo’s final approval of a landmark $575 million settlement with Sutter Health (Sutter). The settlement agreement was reached in 2019, and resolves allegations by the Attorney General’s office, the United Food and Commercial Workers and Employers Benefit Trust (UEBT), and class action plaintiffs that Sutter’s anticompetitive practices led to higher healthcare costs for consumers in Northern California compared to other places in the state. The settlement requires Sutter to pay $575 million in compensation, prohibits anticompetitive conduct, and requires Sutter to follow certain practices to restore competition in California’s healthcare markets.

“This is a groundbreaking settlement and a win for Californians,” said AG Bonta. “Sutter will no longer have free rein to engage in anticompetitive practices that force patients to pay more for health services. Under the terms of our agreement, Sutter’s transparency must increase, and practices that decrease the accessibility and affordability of healthcare must end. A competitive healthcare market is essential to ensuring patients and families aren’t bearing the brunt of healthcare costs while one company dominates the market.”

Sutter is the largest hospital system in Northern California. The Sutter network consists of some 24 acute care hospitals, 36 ambulatory surgery centers, and 16 cardiac and cancer centers. It also includes some 12,000 physicians and over 53,000 employees. In addition, Sutter negotiates contracts on behalf of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and many affiliated physician groups.

This settlement is the result of litigation that began in 2014 when UEBT filed a class action lawsuit that challenged Sutter’s practices in rendering services and setting prices. They sought compensation for and an end to what they alleged were unlawful, anticompetitive business practices, which caused them to pay more than necessary for healthcare services and products. In March 2018, the Attorney General’s office filed a similar lawsuit against Sutter on behalf of the people of California, seeking injunctive relief to compel Sutter to correct its anticompetitive business practices moving forward. The separate lawsuits were combined by the court into one case. In October 2019, one day before the trial, the parties reached an agreement to settle. The settlement was filed with the court on December 19, 2019, and in March, Judge Massullo granted preliminary approval.

Today’s finalized settlement requires Sutter to:

  • Pay $575 million to compensate employers, unions, and others covered under the class action, and to cover costs and fees associated with the legal efforts;
  • Limit what it charges patients for out-of-network services, helping ensure that patients visiting an out-of-network hospital do not face outsized, surprise medical bills;
  • Increase transparency by permitting insurers, employers, and self-funded payers to provide plan members with access to pricing, quality, and cost information, which helps patients make better care decisions;
  • Halt measures that deny patients access to lower-cost plans, thus allowing health insurers, employers, and self-funded payers to offer and direct patients to more affordable health plan options for networks or products;
  • Stop all-or-nothing contracting deals, thus allowing insurers, employers, and self-funded payers to include some but not necessarily all of Sutter’s hospitals, clinics, or other commercial products in their plans’ network.
  • Cease anticompetitive bundling of services and products which forced insurers, employers, and self-funded payers to purchase for their plan offerings more services or products from Sutter than were needed. Sutter must now offer a stand-alone price that must be lower than any bundled package price to give insurers, employers, and self-funded payers more choice;
  • Cooperate with a court-approved compliance monitor to ensure that Sutter is following the terms of the settlement for at least 10 years. The monitor will receive and investigate complaints and may present evidence to the court; and
  • Prevent anticompetitive practices by clearly defining clinical integration to include patient quality of care. The settlement makes clear that for Sutter to claim it has clinically integrated a system, it must meet strict standards beyond regional similarities or the mere sharing of an electronic health record, and must be integrating care in a manner that takes into consideration the quality of care to the patient population. This is important because clinical integration can be used to mask market consolidation efforts by hospital systems, when in fact there is no true integration of a patient’s care. For example, saying that hospitals are regionally close or that hospitals are sharing electronic health records is not enough, there must be close coordination that will lead to less costly, higher quality care for local communities.

A report by the University of California Berkeley showed that over-consolidation drives up prices for consumers. According to the study, outpatient cardiology procedures in Southern California cost nearly $18,000 compared to almost $29,000 in Northern California. For inpatient hospital procedures, the cost in Southern California is nearly $132,000 compared to more than $223,000 in Northern California, a more than $90,000 difference. A 2016 study found that a cesarean delivery in Sacramento, where Sutter is based, costs more than $27,000, nearly double what it costs in Los Angeles or New York, making Northern California one of the most expensive places in the country to have a baby.

Sutter Health offered the following response to the settlement:

“Today’s ruling brings closure to this matter, which was settled almost two years ago. This voluntary settlement enables Sutter Health to maintain our integrated network and ability to provide patients with access to affordable, high-quality care. Sutter’s quality of care is nationally recognized, with the majority of hospitals and care facilities outperforming state and national averages in many measures of quality. We look forward to continuing to work with our health plan partners at the same time we continue to care for the underserved in our communities.”

A copy of the final approval order and judgment are available here and here.

Filed Under: Health, News, State of California

New state budget includes funding for five Bay Area affordable housing pilot programs

July 14, 2021 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Photo: BAHFA

The fiscal 2021-22 state budget signed into law Monday by Gov. Newsom includes a $20 million appropriation for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to underwrite the work of the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA). BAHFA, which is jointly managed by MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), plans to use this money to seed five new pilot programs designed to ease the Bay Area’s housing affordability and homelessness crises.

“BAHFA was established to transform how the Bay Area delivers on housing affordability and stability,” explained Napa County Supervisor Alfredo Pedroza, who also serves as Chair of both MTC and BAHFA. “We appreciate the Legislature investing some of the state’s budget surplus in BAHFA so we can start working immediately on the five pilot projects that take a comprehensive approach to solving the crisis. The state’s commitment will support many of the Bay Area’s most vulnerable residents today and put us firmly on the path to long-term change.”

The five BAHFA pilot programs include an online platform known as Doorway to connect residents with affordable housing opportunities throughout the Bay Area; financing and technical assistance to support and increase the acquisition and preservation of affordable housing to help combat the displacement of low-income residents; a database to track the development or “pipeline” of affordable homes across the region to help match available funding with projects in areas with the most urgent needs; establishment of an anti-displacement services network to link service providers focused on keeping tenants housed, share best practices and ensure the efficient and equitable distribution of rent-relief dollars; and a partnership with San Francisco-based nonprofit All Home to design and implement a regional homelessness prevention system.

Berkeley mayor and ABAG Executive Board president Jesse Arreguin emphasizes BAHFA’s regional approach to solving the Bay Area’s chronic housing affordability problems through what are known as the Three Ps: producing more new housing at all income levels, protecting current residents from displacement, and preserving existing affordable housing.

“The crisis is a combination of complex and inter-related problems that has been growing for decades. But by working together at a regional scale, our nine counties and 101 cities and towns no longer have to try to solve every problem on their own,” he said.

Established in 2019 by state Assembly Bill 1487, BAHFA is the first regional housing finance authority in California. While BAHFA is comprised of the same membership as MTC, its procedures also are managed by the ABAG Executive Board; and both boards must approve any decision to put a regional housing finance measure on a future ballot. Oakland mayor and MTC Commissioner Libby Schaaf serves as Chair of MTC’s BAHFA Oversight Committee.

ABAG is the council of governments and the regional planning agency for the 101 cities and towns, and nine counties of the Bay Area. MTC is the transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.

Filed Under: Bay Area, Growth & Development, Homeless, News, State of California

Governor Newsom, legislative leaders announce eviction moratorium extension, increase rent relief to 100 percent

June 25, 2021 By Publisher Leave a Comment

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders of both the Senate and the Assembly today, Friday, June 25, 2021, announced a proposed extension of California’s statewide evictions moratorium, and an increase in compensation for California’s rent relief program.

The three-party agreement on AB 832 – which extends the current eviction moratorium through September 30, 2021 – will ensure that California quickly uses the more than $5 billion in federal rental assistance to help the state’s tenants and small landlords and protect vulnerable households from eviction. The agreement widens rental assistance by enhancing current law. Provisions include increasing reimbursement to 100 percent for both rent that is past due and prospective payments for both tenants and landlords. Additionally, the bill ensures rental assistance dollars stay in California by prioritizing cities and counties with unmet needs, and uses the judicial process to ensure tenants and landlords have attempted to obtain rental assistance.

“California is coming roaring back from the pandemic, but the economic impacts of COVID-19 continue to disproportionately impact so many low-income Californians, tenants and small landlords alike,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “That’s why I am thankful for today’s news from the Legislature – protecting low-income tenants with a longer eviction moratorium and paying down their back-rent and utility bills – all thanks to the nation’s largest and most comprehensive rental assistance package, which I am eager to sign into law as soon as I receive it.”

“Our housing situation in California was a crisis before COVID, and the pandemic has only made it worse — this extension is key to making sure that more people don’t lose the safety net helping them keep their home,” Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) said. “While our state may be emerging from the pandemic, in many ways, the lingering financial impact still weighs heavily on California families. People are trying to find jobs and make ends meet and one of the greatest needs is to extend the evictions moratorium—which includes maximizing the federal funds available to help the most tenants and landlords possible—so that they can count on a roof over their heads while their finances rebound.”

“The key thing is to recognize that people in rental housing are still facing financial obstacles, even as our economy reopens,” Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) stated. “This moratorium will keep families in homes, provide critical financial support to landlords, and help protect our supply of rental housing.”

Details on the proposed extension can be found in AB 832, which will be in print today. To apply for rental assistance for either renters or landlords, visit housing.ca.gov/covid_rr/index.html.

Filed Under: News, State of California

California Citizens Redistricting Commission to launch Communities of Interest virtual meetings

June 7, 2021 By Publisher Leave a Comment

SACRAMENTO, CA—On Thursday, June 10th, the 2020 California Citizens Redistricting Commission (Commission) will launch the first in a series of Communities of Interest (COI) virtual hearings to capture community specific data that will help Commissioners to respect community boundaries to the best of their abilities when drawing district lines, as is mandated by California’s line drawing criteria.

When the Commission begins drawing maps using census data, they will need to follow this set of criteria, in this order, as outlined in the California Constitution.

  1. Districts must be of nearly equal population to comply with the U.S. Constitution.
  2. Districts must comply with the Voting Rights Act to ensure that minorities have a fair opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.
  3. Districts must be drawn contiguously, so that all parts of the district are connected to each other.
  4. Districts must minimize the division of counties, cities, neighborhoods, and communities of interest to the extent possible.
  5. Districts should be geographically compact such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for more distant populations.
  6. Where practicable, each Senate District should consist of two complete and adjacent Assembly Districts, and Board of Equalization districts should consist of ten complete and adjacent State Senate Districts. This is known as nesting.

We can obtain the city and county information from those jurisdictions, but we need the neighborhood and communities of interest information from Californians directly.

“The Commission is excited to hear directly from Californians about their Communities of Interest during our initial COI input meeting on Thursday, June 10th from 12 – 8 PM. Although we have been accepting Communities of Interest submissions online since March, these virtual input sessions are yet another opportunity for communities to share with the Commission about their Communities of Interest,” stated Commission Chair Isra Ahmad.

During these input meetings, participants will be asked to describe their community and will be encouraged to consider highlighting the following:

  1. Begin with your county or city.
  2. Mention the street names and significant locations in your neighborhood to help us identify the parameters of your community.
  3. What are your shared interests?
  4. What brings you together?
  5. What is important to your community?
  6. Are there nearby areas you want to be in a district with?
  7. Nearby areas you don’t want to be in a district with? Why or why not?
  8. Has your community come together to advocate for important services, better schools, roads, or health centers in your neighborhood?

Registration is not required to participate in these public input meetings. The call-in number for public input on the day of each event will be (877) 853-5247.

For more information regarding the June 10th event, please visit our website at: https://www.wedrawthelinesca.org/june_10_mtg. To view a full list of upcoming meetings, please visit: https://www.wedrawthelinesca.org/meetings. Additionally, Californians can skip the line and provide their input online by visiting: https://drawmycacommunity.org/. The online COI tool is available in fourteen languages and includes tutorials.

Every 10 years, after the federal government publishes updated census information, California must redraw the boundaries of its electoral districts so that the state’s population is evenly allocated among the new districts.

In 2008, California voters passed the Voters First Act, authorizing the creation of the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw new State Senate, State Assembly, and State Board of Equalization district lines. In 2010, the Voters First Act for Congress gave the Commission the responsibility of drawing new Congressional districts following every census.

For more information, please visit WeDrawTheLinesCA.org.

 

Filed Under: News, Politics & Elections, State of California

California court rules in favor of churches, sets state-wide injunction against Newsom’s “discriminatory restrictions”

May 24, 2021 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Governor must pay $1.35 million to reimburse churches’ attorney’s fees and costs

Photo courtesy of Liberty Counsel.

By Liberty Counsel

On Monday, May 17, 2021 a California District Court entered an order approving Liberty Counsel’s settlement of the lawsuit on behalf of Harvest Rock Church and Harvest International Ministry against California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The full and final settlement was approved today the District Court and thus is the first state-wide permanent injunction in the country against COVID restrictions on churches and places of worship.

This is the first state-wide permanent injunction in the country against COVID restrictions on churches and places of worship. Under the agreed state-wide permanent injunction, all California churches may hold worship without discriminatory restrictions.

Under the settlement, California may no longer impose discriminatory restrictions upon houses of worship. The governor must also pay Liberty Counsel $1,350,000 to reimburse attorney’s fees and costs.

The settlement references several Supreme Court opinions, including Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom, that include a long list of similar nonreligious activity the High Court set forth as comparable gatherings. These include grocery stores, warehouses, big box stores, transportation, infrastructure, telecommunications, and much more. In other words, churches and places of worship may never again have discriminatory restrictions placed on them that are not equally applied to a long list of “critical infrastructure” or “essential services” as outlined in several Supreme Court precedents cited in the settlement agreement.

Pastor Ché Ahn, founder of Harvest Rock Church and Harvest International Ministry, received a letter from the Pasadena Criminal Prosecutor threating him, the staff, and anyone who attends church with daily criminal charges each up to one year in prison, and daily fines of $1,000. Despite this intense opposition, Pastor Ahn stood against these unconstitutional executive orders. He risked criminal charges and fines, as did those who worked for the church and those who attended. Thanks to his leadership, every church in California is now free.

Newsom originally imposed the most severe restrictions on churches and even home Bible studies and worship in the nation. Now after multiple reprimands from the U.S. Supreme Court, including two on behalf of Harvest Rock Church and Harvest International Ministry, Gov. Newsom will be the first governor in America to have a permanent injunction against him on behalf of houses of worship.

This case involved three emergency injunctions pending appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, two oral arguments before a panel of three judges, two orders from the U.S. Supreme Court, including an injunction pending appeal issued by the High Court on February 5, 2021.

The timeline for actions regarding California’s worship restrictions include:

March 19, 2020 – May 25, 2020: No Worship

May 26, 2020 – July 12, 2020: 25 percent capacity but no more than 100 people

July 13, 2020 – April 8, 2021: No worship for over 90 percent of California

April 9, 2021 – April 12, 2021: Restrictions on home Bible study lifted but not on singing and chanting

April 13, 2021 – May 9, 2021: Mandatory attendance limits are lifted

May 17, 2021 – and Forever: Discriminatory restrictions on churches permanently removed

Under the settlement agreement, discriminatory restrictions on worship and religious gatherings may no longer be applied to churches and places of worship.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court granted an emergency petition for an injunction pending appeal on behalf of New York City synagogues and Roman Catholic churches in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo and Agudath Israel v. Cuomo. On December 3, 2020, the High Court granted the petition by Harvest Rock Church and Harvest International Ministry, setting aside all the lower court orders and directing them to follow its ruling in Roman Catholic Dioceses. When the lower courts refused to strike down California’s restrictions, the case returned to the Supreme Court.

On February 5, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Harvest Rock Church and Harvest International Ministry by enjoining California’s total ban on indoor worship. This was the second time Liberty Counsel appealed to the High Court on behalf of these churches. The ruling also included South Bay United Pentecostal Church.

On April 9, the U.S. Supreme Court granted an emergency injunction pending appeal in Tandon v. Newsom and ruled that Gov. Newsom’s restrictions on home Bible study and worship violate the First Amendment.

Pastor Ché Ahn said, “This is a momentous day for churches in America! After nearly a yearlong battle defending our religious freedoms, our lawsuit has reached a permanent settlement in our favor. I am thrilled to see the complete reversal of the last discriminatory restrictions against churches in California, knowing this case will act as a precedent, not only in our state, but also in our nation. We are incredibly grateful to our attorney Mat Staver and to Liberty Counsel for their relentless support and fierce determination. Most of all, we give all the glory to God for moving mightily in this historic season!”

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Governor Gavin Newsom’s COVID restrictions intentionally discriminated against churches while providing preferential treatment to many secular businesses and gatherings. The Supreme Court intervened multiple times to provide relief. California may never again place discriminatory restrictions on churches and places of worship. Gov. Gavin Newsom has now been permanently quarantined and may not violate the First Amendment rights of churches and places of worship again. We are grateful for Pastor Ché Ahn, Harvest Rock Church, and Harvest International Ministry. Pastor Ahn’s leadership and courage has toppled the tyranny and freed every pastor and church in California.”

 

Filed Under: Faith, Government, Legal, News, State of California

Sex ed transparency bill resurrected to be heard Wednesday after being rejected by Senate Education Committee

April 27, 2021 By Publisher 1 Comment

Contra Costa’s Glazer is a committee member

By Greg Burt

This Wednesday, April 28, the Senate Education Committee is again considering approval of a bill to require school districts to put their sex education material online for easy parental access. The same bill, SB 217, failed in March, even with the support of the committee chair Senator Connie Leyva (D-San Bernardino). The author Senator Brian Dahle (R-Redding) is hoping that removing the requirement that sex education lessons be translated into various languages, will guarantee passage this time. Senator Steve Glazer is a member of the committee.

The President of the California Family Council Jonathan Keller commended Senator Dahle for working hard to resurrect the commonsense proposal. “Whether they vote Democrat or Republican, all parents believe in government transparency, especially regarding the education of their children,” Keller said. “We urge elected officials on both sides of the aisle to set aside partisan politics and support these reasonable protections for kids and families.”

Senator Dahle believes the need for the bill has increased because of the pandemic. “Given the new structure of our schooling system as changed due to COVID-19, we should encourage that parents actively participate in their child’s development and instruction,” Dahle wrote. “The shift to internet-based and technology heavy education has forced schools to prevent parents from physically accessing the school campus during the pandemic. … As such, we need to ensure that parents and students have access to all of the material and curriculum being taught by the school.”

The idea for this bill came from a Bay Area mother named Denise Pursche several years ago when her elementary school resisted showing her the new sex education curriculum to be used for her twin 5th graders. After being sent on detours, and then asking again and again, Denise finally got a chance to look at the actual lessons being used, but she could only review them at the school district office for a limited period of time. Once she saw the graphic, age-inappropriate content, Denise realized why school personnel tried to hide the curriculum from her.

It is common practice for school officials to require parents to come to the school or district offices during school hours if they want to review the sex-ed lessons, a difficult prospect for single parents or homes with two working parents.

With the help of the California Family Council, she got former Senator Mike Morrell to introduce SB 637, a bill not only required sex education materials to be translated into various languages and put online, but required schools to get parental permission before teaching comprehensive sex education to children in elementary school. Currently, parents can opt their children out of classes, but they must initiate the process.

The Senate Education Committee heard Morrell’s bill, SB 673, in January of 2020, but it died along party lines. The committee chair Senator Leyva said at the time she supported the transparency part of the bill, but not the opt-in procedure. So this year, Senator Dahle took Leyva at her word and introduced SB 217 that only included the transparency part of the bill, plus the costly provision that required the curriculum to be translated for parents who didn’t read English. Unfortunately, the bill died 3 – 3, with Senator Richard Pan not voting.

Hopefully, with the cost-prohibitive translation provision removed, at least one of the four Democrats on the education committee, Senators Richard Pan, Dave Cortese, Steven Glazer, or Mike McGuire, will change their minds and vote for the bill. SB 217 is scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Education Committee on the morning of Wednesday, April 28.

Take Action

CALL your State Senator and tell them to vote “Yes” on SB 217!

Burt is the Director of Capitol Engagement at the California Family Council.

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

California, Contra Costa follow FDA, CDC in pausing use of Johnson & Johnson/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine

April 13, 2021 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Vial of the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. Source: CDC

Due to “six reported cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot” after vaccination

SACRAMENTO – On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued a statement from Dr. Erica Pan, state epidemiologist, regarding the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine.

“Today, the CDC and FDA have recommended a temporary pause in the use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine out of an abundance of caution. Of over 6.8 million doses administered nationally, there have been six reported cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot with symptoms occurring 6 to 13 days after vaccination.

“California is following the FDA and CDC’s recommendation and has directed health care providers to pause the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine until we receive further direction from health and safety experts. Additionally, the state will convene the Western States Scientific Safety Review Workgroup to review the information provided by the federal government on this issue. As the federal government has said, we do not expect a significant impact to our vaccination allocations. In California, less than 4% of our vaccine allocation this week is the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.”

For more information about the adverse effects, and what to do if you are experiencing symptoms, please contact your healthcare provider. We will provide additional details on what this means for our state efforts as they become available.

The joint CDC and FDA statement can be found here.

In addition, the Contra Costa Health Services issued the following announcement on Tuesday about the matter, also pausing use of the J&J vaccine:

To ensure that every dose of COVID-19 vaccine provided in our county is safe for patients, Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) will today temporarily pause its use of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine while federal regulatory agencies examine new information about a possible, rare side effect that can cause blood clots.

CCHS is closely following guidance issued this morning by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding this vaccine. CCHS continues to administer the other vaccines approved for emergency use in the U.S., from Pfizer and Moderna.

Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine is a very small part of Contra Costa’s vaccine allocation from the state and federal governments and CCHS does not anticipate cancelling any of its vaccination appointments at this time.

Patients with vaccination appointments through CCHS should attend at their scheduled time.

CCHS is not aware of any reported cases of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccine in the county that were inconsistent with those documented during the extensive clinical trials conducted to ensure the safety of all vaccines used in the U.S.

The risk of an adverse reaction for people who received Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) vaccine more than a month ago is extremely low, according to the CDC.

People who received this vaccine more recently should contact a healthcare provider immediately if they develop symptoms such as severe headaches, severe abdominal pain, severe leg pain or shortness of breath – these symptoms are different than the usual, minor reactions that some people may experience in the day or two following their vaccination.

The FDA has not received any reports of similar side effects associated with the use of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

CCHS will update the public at cchealth.org/coronavirus as more information becomes available about this developing situation.

 

 

Filed Under: Health, News, State of California

State says Measure T’s growth limitations in Antioch’s Sand Creek area “cannot…be adopted implemented or enforced”

April 1, 2021 By Publisher 2 Comments

The Let Antioch Voters Decide: The Sand Creek Area Protection Initiative known as Measure T on the November 2020 ballot cannot be implemented.

Violates state law known as SB330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019

Would have devalued property by over 99%, downzoning it from 2 homes per acre to 1 home per 80 acres

Cities and counties must approve new homes or face hefty fines which will fund low-income housing

By Allen Payton

As was reported in news articles and an editorial by the Herald during the 2020 fall election campaign, the state has issued an opinion letter confirming that the residential growth limitations in Measure T on the November ballot, “cannot permissibly be adopted, implemented or enforced.” That’s due to the passage of SB330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, also as previously reported. Known as the Let Antioch Voters Decide: The Sand Creek Protection Initiative, the measure passed by almost 79% of the vote.

SB330 added Section 66300 to California Government Code so that cities cannot reduce zoning on residential property by either council action or citizen initiative until Jan. 1, 2025.  Also, if a city council doesn’t approve new housing within existing allowable zoning, the new law requires a court to fine the city a minimum of $10,000 per housing unit denied and force the city to approve the new homes.

SB330 and State Housing Law

The language of SB330 reads, “(c) It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, to do both of the following: (1) Suspend certain restrictions on the development of new housing during the period of the statewide emergency described in subdivisions (a) and (b). (2) Work with local governments to expedite the permitting of housing in regions suffering the worst housing shortages and highest rates of displacement.”

Furthermore, the act reads, “The Legislature finds and declares that the provision of adequate housing, in light of the severe shortage of housing at all income levels in this state, is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair…Therefore, the provisions of this act apply to all cities, including charter cities.”

In addition, the new law reads, “with respect to land where housing is an allowable use, an affected county or an affected city shall not enact a development policy… that would  have any of the following effects: Changing the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district below what was allowed under the land use designation and zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in effect on January 1, 2018.”

Also, the new law amended Section 65589.5 of the Government Code that reads, “the court shall impose fines on a local agency… in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete.” Furthermore, the law requires, “the local agency shall commit and expend the money” from the fines “for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.”

So, not only will the new homes in the development that was denied be built, but the city will be fined and the funds from them must be used to build additional, low-income housing.

Finally, According to the HCD, “Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their ‘general plan’ (also required by the state). General plans serve as the local government’s ‘blueprint’ for how the city and/or county will grow and develop and include seven elements: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, and housing. The law mandating that housing be included as an element of each jurisdiction’s general plan is known as ‘housing-element law.’

California’s housing-element law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demand of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain), housing development. As a result, housing policy in California rests largely on the effective implementation of local general plans and, in particular, local housing elements.” Each of the regions in the state must develop a plan for their Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements.

The Bay Area’s current Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan (RHNA) projected 187,990 units needed between Jan. 31, 2015 and Jan. 31, 2023 and another 441,176 units needed between 2023 and 2031, according to the HCD and the Association of Bay Area Governments. In the latest RHNA, it requires Antioch to add 2,481 more housing units by 2030. (See related article)

City of Antioch Letter to HCD Regarding Measure T & SB330

A letter was sent on Jan. 8, 2021 from an attorney hired by the City of Antioch to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) seeking their advice and opinion on implementing Measure T. In that letter, attorney David Mehretu of Meyers Nave asked Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Manager for HCD to review Measure T for a determination of its “validity under SB 330 as follows:

  1. Whether Measure T’s housing development restrictions are proscribed under Section 66300(b)(1)(A) of the Government Code.
  2. Whether, pursuant to Sections 66300(b)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) of the Government Code, Measure T’s housing development restrictions constitute “a moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development . . . within [Sand Creek] . . . to specifically protect against an imminent threat to the health and safety of persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of [Sand Creek] . . . ”.
  3. Whether Measure T acts as an impermissible cap on housing pursuant to Section 66300(b)(1)(D)(ii) of the Government Code; and
  4. Whether Antioch may, consistently with SB 330, enforce Measure T’s housing development restrictions.”

Response Letter from HCD Explains Why Measure T Violates State Law

In a March 9th letter in response, McDougall wrote, “the City requested the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) opinion as to the enforceability of a reduction in the intensity of land use included in the City’s voter-approved initiative Measure T.”

“HCD’s opinion is based on the mandatory criteria established by the Legislature with the passage of Senate Bill 330 in 2019, known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which added section 66300 to the Government Code,” McDougall wrote.

“HCD finds that the less intensive use provisions of Measure T are impermissible under Government Code section 66300,” and “Measure T effectively acts as a ‘…cap on the number of housing units that can be approved…’, a violation of Government Code section 66300…”, he wrote.

McDougall offered one caveat writing, “the City could enforce the reduction in intensity contemplated in Measure T, notwithstanding this opinion, if and when it concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity.” However, he further wrote, “nothing in Measure T provides for an equal increase in intensity of land use elsewhere in the jurisdiction, therefore, these provisions of Measure T cannot be permissibly adopted, implemented, or enforced consistent with Government Code section 66300.”

He concludes his letter offering the state’s opinion that Measure T is impermissible.

“Measure T appears to have been drafted to assure that housing development in the City is restricted in a manner that preserves agriculture and open spaces (Measure T, section 1). However, there is minimal analysis in Measure T to support this outcome. Measure T language more readily suggests it was passed primarily with the intent to restrict future housing development as opposed to accommodating future residential growth as intended in the City’s general plan,” the HCD Housing Policy Manager continues.

“In sum, the provisions of the voter-approved Measure T result in a lesser intensity of land use and create a development cap, resulting in a reduction in the total number of housing units that can be built within the Initiative Area than what is currently allowed in the City’s General Plan. Accordingly, HCD is of the opinion that such a reduction in the intensity of land use created by Measure T cannot permissibly be adopted, implemented, or enforced consistent with Government Code section 66300,” McDougall concluded.

Measure T is Moot, Cities and Counties Must Approve New Homes or Face Fines

Therefore, as previously reported, the state has confirmed that Measure T, which would have devalued four privately owned parcels on the west side of Deer Valley Road by over 99% from two homes per acre to just one home per 80 acres, is moot and will have no impact on the development of new housing in Antioch. It would have affected less than 900 housing units remaining of the total 4,000 homes allowed in the City of Antioch’s Sand Creek Focus Area of the general plan. But now those housing projects will move forward in the planning process.

Furthermore, the council must adopt all new housing projects in the Sand Creek area and anywhere else in the city, as do all other cities and counties, until Jan. 1, 2025, which don’t require any zoning changes or general plan amendments, or the city will face state fines of $10,000 per unit, at a minimum, and the homes will still be approved and allowed to be built, and the fines fund additional, low-income housing in the city, according to SB330.

 

 

Filed Under: East County, Growth & Development, News, State of California

Antioch, West Contra Costa schools to receive $20,000 state mini grants for COVID-19 challenges

March 14, 2021 By Publisher Leave a Comment

State Superintendent Tony Thurmond announces $240,000 in grants to address inequities that deepened during pandemic

SACRAMENTO—State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond announced Thursday that the California Department of Education (CDE) has selected 12 recipients of mini grants, totaling more than $240,000, that will fund local efforts across the state to address equity and opportunity gaps through supporting educator and student needs in distance learning, in-person instruction, and hybrid models. The Antioch Unified School District will receive $20,000 of the grant funds.

Since the applications were announced in December 2020 as part of CDE’s ongoing efforts to address the COVID-19 pandemic’s continued impact on students, more than 400 schools and districts across California applied for the grants, which are funded by contributions from philanthropic partners. The funds must be used to advance equity and close opportunity and access gaps. The grantees are given discretion to decide how they will address the topic of equity. The list of grantees is at the end of this press release.

“It’s been an unprecedented, unpredictable year for our schools, and California’s educators have been looking for resources and support to ensure that students can still attend class, access a great education, and learn and achieve during the pandemic,” Thurmond said. “Congratulations to these school districts for showing their communities that they’re committed to recognizing and addressing opportunity gaps during the pandemic and providing targeted supports to students and families who have been struggling.”

Issues addressed by the grant funds include transportation, internet connectivity, modifying spaces to serve as family resource centers, one-on-one academic intervention, mentorship for students struggling with distance learning and asynchronous instruction, small group tutoring, home visits, professional development for educators needing assistance with technology, and a variety of other family engagement activities.

Since last spring, the State Superintendent and the CDE have maintained an ongoing and urgent focus on addressing the numerous access and opportunity gaps that impact student learning—gaps that, in many cases, have deepened and become newly exposed during the pandemic. During the past year, the CDE has secured hundreds of thousands of computing devices for students, pressured internet service providers to expand access, bolstered mental health and counseling resources, made it easier for schools to provide meals, and provided guidance and dozens of training opportunities for educators to strengthen distance learning for California’s highest-need students.

As the state continues to battle COVID-19, CDE will continue to support efforts to protect the health and safety of school communities while providing the custom supports needed to ensure learning continues and improves.

The Equity Mini Grant recipients and intended uses of funds are:

  • Antioch Unified School District: $20,000 to implement home-visit teams to gain engagement from students and provide support to students and families that are currently not showing high engagement/attendance.
  • West Contra Costa Unified School District: $20,000 to expand capacity to provide outreach and mentorship to students by hiring a full-time mentor through the Peacemaker program.
  • Castaic High School: $20,000 to pay for district buses to pick up students from a central location in an underserved neighborhood.
  • Colusa Unified School District: $20,000 for transitioning the current Colusa High School Library to serve as a student and parent resource center.
  • Imperial Unified School District: $20,000 to support internet connectivity for our students who live in an underserved area.
  • Kern High School District: $20,000 to provide one-to-one academic intervention and support for students with unique needs who have failed multiple classes.
  • Lakeside Union School District: $20,000 to provide mentor support to students who continue to struggle with engagement in asynchronous instruction.
  • Riverside County Special Education: $20,000 to purchase book bags, books (English/Spanish sets), educational materials/manipulatives for arts and crafts, and staff mileage reimbursement for the home delivery of weekly literacy bags.
  • San Ysidro School District: $20,000 to provide support services to students and families to address the academic and technological needs of students and families.
  • Sundale Union Elementary School District: $20,000 to strengthen family connection with parents by having students on campus in small cohorts during non-school days/intercessions.
  • Tehachapi Unified School District: $21,352.32 to provide additional opportunities for credit recovery for seniors who are at risk of not graduating.
  • Twin Rivers Unified School District: $20,000 to train and provide support to teachers displaying the highest needs for support during distance learning.

Filed Under: East County, Education, News, State of California, West County

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • …
  • 23
  • Next Page »
Furniture-Clearance-02-26B
Celia's-3-26-A
Delta-RC-A
Deer-Valley-Chiro-06-22

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