Your voice can help shape the future of health in our city
By City of Antioch
Contra Costa Health, Hijas del Campo, and the City of Antioch invite residents to participate in an upcoming Community Health Assessment, an opportunity to share your experiences, identify community needs and help guide future health services, programs, and investments in Antioch and East County.
The Community Health Assessment (CHA) is an important effort to better understand the health needs of our communities throughout Contra Costa County, and advance health equity. Guided by a Steering Committee made up of county staff, community‑based organizations,and local health institutions/Medi-Cal providers, the CHA uses both primary data (surveys, listening sessions, focus groups, etc.) and secondary data (existing health and demographic information) to build a full picture of community health.
To hear from as many residents as possible, a survey in 16 languages is being launched and CCH is supporting listening sessions across Contra Costa County, with a focus on reaching communities that are most vulnerable or historically underrepresented, as part of primary data collection.
The findings from the analysis of the primary and secondary data will be shared in a CHA report on the CCH website and will help shape the Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP). This work reflects our commitment to listening to community voices and using what we learn to guide the future of health in Contra Costa County.
The feedback collected will play an important role in shaping decisions that impact our community for years to come. We encourage residents of all backgrounds to attend and make their voices heard.
Map of the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration-regulated pipelines that run in and through Antioch. Source: CRPC
Will also end five-year lawsuit against City; but City staff claim company continued unauthorized use of pipeline
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting tonight, Tuesday, July 28, 2026, the Antioch City Council will vote on the Encroachment Permit Appeal of California Resources Pipeline Company, LLC (CRPC), owner of the low-pressure, natural gas pipeline that runs under the city and has been shut off since 2021.
As previously reported, after operating for 30 years without incident, the 35-mile-long pipeline, including the 8.5-mile section through Antioch, that run from Union Island in the Delta to Pittsburg and serves the Chevron oil refinery in Richmond, the CRPC’s Franchise Agreement expired on February 7, 2021. On or about February 10, 2021, CRPC applied to renew the Franchise for an additional 10-year term that would run from February 7, 2021, until February 7, 2031. On September 28, 2021, the City Council voted 2-3 not to approve the proposed ordinance that would have granted CRPC’s requested 10-year renewal and the Franchise Agreement remained expired. Current Councilmembers Monica Wilson and Tamisha-Torres Walker were joined by then-Mayor Lamar Thorpe in voting against renewing the franchise agreement. Then Councilmembers Lori Ogorchock and Mike Barbanica voted to renew the franchise agreement.
The 12.75-inch pipeline, buried at a minimum of four feet, carried 1.8 million cubic feet of natural gas daily which is enough to supply about 9,000 homes. It’s one of many natural gas pipelines that run through the city.
In the past, the council’s renewal votes had been non-controversial, and the annual franchise fee only generated $16,871.90. Wilson led the effort in Antioch following the lead of Brentwood Councilwoman Jovita Mendoza. Their council, also on a 2-3 vote, opposed renewing that city’s franchise fee renewal in May 2021, even though only a small portion of the pipeline runs through their city.
Torres-Walker claimed, “Environmental injustices exist all around us and they impact frontline communities the most,” as a reason to oppose the franchise agreement renewal. She also called the pipeline, “dangerous” even though, “The pressures are 50% below the allowable pressures” and “The volumes are very low” a CRC representative explained.
Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Also, as previously reported, shutting down the pipeline actually increased greenhouse gas emissions as 50% of gas now supplied to CRPC’s customers in Contra Costa originates in Canada as much as 3,500 miles away instead, about 80% is from fracking and some of the gas has to be transported via truck.
Tuesday Night’s Agenda Item
Under Item 6 on Tuesday night’s agenda, City staff are recommending “that the City Council affirm the City Engineer’s denial of the Encroachment Permit Application submitted by…CRPC in June 2022.”
• On or about June 29, 2022…CRPC’s predecessor-in-interest, California Resources Production Corporation, applied for an encroachment permit to maintain its existing Union Island Pipeline within the City’s public right-of-way.
• CRPC’s application included all information required by the City’s form, including necessary renderings, a surety bond, and proof of relevant liability and property insurance.
• On May 15, 2023, the City Engineer denied the application solely on the basis that two years prior the City Council had voted to deny CRPC’s franchise extension application.
• On May 22, 2023, CRPC timely appealed the City Engineer’s decision.
• Because the City Engineer did not have substantive comments or technical conditions to place on the permit application as a basis for rejection, the City Engineer had a duty to grant the permit.
• The Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) audits pipeline records, inspection programs, safety protections to prevent leaks or overpressures, operating procedures, training, and emergency response programs. The UIP inspections demonstrated:
• 2015 – No findings or violations.
• 2018 – No findings or violations.
• 2024 – No findings or violations.
• 2022: Independent consultants, Bear, INC., at the direction of the City of Brentwood, conducted a safety assessment of the pipeline. The assessment involved evaluating previous pipeline inspections and concluded: “Overall, this pipeline is well maintained, in good condition, and has had more inspections than the average pipeline, and the inspections were sufficiently thorough.”
“Without UIP, the Richmond refinery must import its natural gas, making California’s fuel supply more expensive,” the CRPC presentation concludes.
City Claims CRPC Continued Unauthorized Use of Pipeline
However, the staff report claims, “The City Engineer did not err in concluding that CRPC’s Encroachment Permit Application was in conflict with the City’s Encroachment Regulations. Specifically, as detailed in the May 15, 2023 written denial letter provided to CRPC, CRPC continued to use the Union Island Pipeline on City owned and/or controlled property without authorization after the expiration of CRPC’s Franchise with the City on February 7, 2021.
“This use continued after the City Council voted not to extend the Franchise on September 28, 2021 – and thus after the City expressly declined to re-authorize CRPC to use the City’s rights of way for the purpose of operating the Union Island Pipeline. This use also continued after the City Engineer sent a notice of termination informing CRPC that it was excluded from further use of the public highways, streets, alleys, and public places which it was previously granted permission to use under the Franchise Agreement. The City Engineer knew that CRPC’s continued use of the Union Island Pipeline was the subject of ongoing litigation between the City and CRPC wherein the City contends CRPC’s continued use of the City’s property is an unauthorized encroachment.
“As such, the City Engineer fairly concluded that denial was warranted because CRPC’s Encroachment Permit Application – submitted while CRPC was encroaching on the public right of way and did not have the City’s consent – was in conflict with the City’s Encroachment Regulations, and in particular with Antioch Municipal Code sections 7-2.204 and/or 7-2.304.”
Council Options
The current council majority can either vote to approve the appeal and renew the franchise agreement or deny the appeal, continue being sued by CRPC and keep the pipeline shuttered.
Meeting Details
Following the 6:00 p.m. Closed Session meeting, the regular meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. inside the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. It can be viewed livestream on the City’s website or the City’s YouTube channel.
Will also vote on a 3% pay raise for police officers, Street Light & Landscape Maintenance District assessments, natural gas company’s appeal to reopen pipeline and recognize 60 years of Antioch-Chichibu Sister City relationship
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting on Tuesday night, July 28, 2026, the Antioch City Council will again discuss state funding for the Homekey+ California Supportive Housing (CSH) Mahogany Housing Project. It is expected they will vote to either accept or reject the $34.9 million grant which requires matching City funds to create 84 units of permanent supportive housing for veterans and homeless individuals in Antioch and from throughout the county.
Before the regular meeting begins at 7:00 p.m., the Council will hold a closed session at 6:00 p.m. to discuss “Initiation of Litigation”, as the agenda item is simply described.
Homekey+ CSH Mahogany Housing Project
During their meeting on June 23rd, which lasted past midnight, after receiving public comments on both sides of the issue, the Council postponed a decision on the Homekey+ funding until tomorrow night’s meeting. Then on June 29th, the Council held a study session to get their questions answered regarding the project and the funding.
According to the staff report for agenda Item 7, the Council has two options.
“Option A – Reaffirm Continued Participation and Proceed with Implementation Receive the report; acknowledge the additional due diligence conducted since the June 29, 2026, Study Session; reaffirm the City’s continued participation as a Homekey+ co applicant and the funding commitments previously approved under Resolution No. 2025/201; direct staff to continue working with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), California Supportive Housing (CSH), and project partners to negotiate and finalize the most favorable financial and operational terms reasonably available to the City, including opportunities to reduce the City’s long-term financial commitments where feasible; and proceed with execution of the Homekey+ Standard Agreement and associated project documents consistent with the authority previously granted by the City Council.”
“Option B – Rescind Prior Authorization and Withdraw from the Project Receive the report and direct staff to rescind the City’s prior authorization under Resolution No. 2025/201, notify HCD that the City will not execute the Homekey+ Standard Agreement, and withdraw the City from continued participation as a Homekey+ co-applicant.”
Background
On average, the state and city funds for the project, combined, would total $41.75 million or about $500,000 per unit over the first five years and approximately $54.4 million or $640,000 per unit over the full 15-year period.
According to the City staff report for the June 23rd meeting, “consistent with the approved Homekey+ application and prior City Council authorization, the City identified a proposed $750,000 contribution to support acquisition and rehabilitation costs associated with the project. The proposed contribution is reflected in the City’s Five-Year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan. Funding for this contribution is included in the proposed FY 2026/27 Housing Successor budget.
Following Council direction at their meeting on May 22, 2025, the City applied for the Homekey+ funding. “The project application assumes ongoing operating assistance averaging approximately $1.2 million annually during the initial five-year period,” for a total of an additional $6 million. “If such funding levels were maintained over the full fifteen-year period, the total potential City contribution could be approximately $18.75 million, from the General Fund.”
“The City would receive the benefit of approximately $34.9 million in State Homekey+ funding,” awarded in May 2026, “for acquisition and rehabilitation of the project. The City would assume ongoing administrative, monitoring, and compliance responsibilities associated with participation in the program.”
“While the City was a co-applicant and recipient of the award, the City has not executed the Homekey+ Standard Agreement with HCD and has not formally accepted the grant funds. Because the…Agreement has not been executed, the City currently has no contractual obligation to participate in the project. The City would not assume the reporting, compliance, monitoring, or administrative responsibilities associated with the Homekey+ Program.” However, if the Council declines the grant funds, “the City could experience reduced competitiveness for certain future discretionary housing funding opportunities.”
Council Gets Questions Answered During nJune 29th Study Session
During a special study session on Monday, June 29, 2026, that lasted three-and-a-half hours, the Antioch City Council asked a variety of questions of staff regarding the proposed Homekey+ California Supportive Housing (CSH) Mahogany Housing Project at the Antioch Inn & Suites, formerly Comfort Inn.
In attendance to answer questions was Jamie Schecter, Homeless Services Chief with Contra Costa Health, Housing and Homeless Services, who oversees the County’s Continuum of Care, she mentioned two other Homekey projects, Delta Landing Interim Housing Program at the former Motel 6 in Pittsburg and another in San Pablo. She also spoke of a similar upcoming project in Richmond the County is working with. Also in attendance were Richmond City Manager Shasa Curl and her Community Development Director, Lina Velasco, who has worked on that city’s Homekey project, who provided a presentation about it.
Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas asked, “The City of Richmond is actually the owner of this property?”
“Yes, we will own the property,” Velasco responded. “However, during the term of the ground lease, the lessee will own the improvements. They’ll be responsible for all the maintenance and the improvements.” “The wrap-around services, are they provided from City staff of Richmond or are they contracted out?” he asked.
“They’re contracted,” Velasco stated.
“How is occupancy determined?” Freitas asked.
“We cannot be limited to Richmond residents but there is a prioritization that’s considered,” she explained. “However, we’ll serve countywide.”
Mayor Ron Bernal asked if any of the funding pays for staff time and consultants. Velasco responded, “Some of the Homekey funding has predevelopment costs. However, it’s not reimbursing, like, the time I take to write an annual report and expenditure report. So, that’s part of what we’ve been absorbing outside of a loan for the rehab. But there were some early draws for the legal fees. The developer is paying for the architectural fees, the permit fees. Those costs were included in the grant award.”
“During the 55-year term of the project, will there be any funding for staff from the Homekey,” Bernal pressed further.
City Manager Curl responded, “I would say, ‘no’ and I think it’s important for the Antioch City Council to understand, our contribution of $10.3 million is an advance from the General Fund in excess of whatever was in our Housing In Lieu fund. So, as that is replenished that will pay back the City.”
“This is the first time we’ve done something of this magnitude,” Curl continued. “So, the city council has a third-party, neutral analysis that was separate from staff. In addition, the project looked at through the construction management lens, especially the change orders, especially with inflation. So, having that third party has been extremely helpful for staff working with the building official.”
“What is your program during that 55-year period for making sure the building is properly being maintained and when there is a problem…how are they handled?” Freitas asked.
“Our plan is to do annual inspections annually,” Velasco stated. “We do within our budget have a capital reserve for issues…including turnover.”
“How do you define success over a 55-year period?” Freitas then asked.
“For me…this housing type is very important and difficult to produce,” she responded. “I think making sure the property is well-maintained also, well-operated. Hoping the tenants that come in are not losing their housing or being expelled due to lease violations…making sure supportive services include tenancy sustaining services. I think those are the big things and just making sure it doesn’t become a nuisance property for the City.”
Freitas then asked about 24-hour security costs.
“So, we are talking about that. We do have that in our budget,” Velasco explained. “We may look at that overtime based on how the property is operating and the need.”
District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha asked if the occupancy would be “100% unhoused that you will be serving?”
“Yes. When we wrote our application it was for targeting the chronically homeless,” she stated. “There is a lega definition in our regulatory agreement with HCD (California Department of Housing and Community Development).”
“Is it a similar focus with individuals, youth and veterans?” Rocha asked.
“If they fit the definition,” Velasco said. “But unlike Homekey plus, you have more target definitions.”
“With your case managers is there a ratio that you have identified?” the councilman asked.
“Currently our budget is two case managers for the property,” she responded for 48 units.
“With Mahogany, it’s 100% just for those being served,” Rocha asked his fellow councilmembers. Torres-Walker nodded in agreement.
“Without those ERF funds (State Encampment Resolution Funds) and the Homekey, I think it would have been a heavy lift for the City,” Cass stated. “So, I think between that and the CDBG funds it was really important to get all of the partners to the table. For me, the price per unit is what makes it an acceptable public policy solution…because the cost per unit is less than if we were building a new unit. That was part of the rationale and because it takes so long to get a new unit online.”
Staff Answer Council Member Questions
Council members asked staff some of the outstanding questions not answered in the staff report for the agenda item.
Regarding the hotel’s current financial condition facing foreclosure, Freitas asked, “If the property owner sells the property with those debts, how is the City made whole?”
He mentioned “$400,000 or more in delinquent taxes.”
“And the water,” said Acting City Manager Ana Cortez.
“The City of Antioch is a co-applicant – said Assistant City Attorney Kevin Kundinger
“So, we’re just paying bills,” Freitas stated.
“Yes,” Kundinger replied. “I think the decisions are made collaboratively.”
Freitas asked for the breakdown of the $34.9 million in state funds.
The project developer said, “The capital award is the purchase price $27,500,00. Other costs are about $7 million.
“Approximately $700,000 is for operation and the $1.2 million from the City,” Freitas stated.
The councilman then asked about the veterans’ units.
In response to a question by Mayor Ron Bernal, the developer said there will be no senior-designated units.
Under Item 5 on the agenda, the Council will vote on the annual assessments for six Streetlighting & Landscape Districts throughout the city. They annual rates range from $8 in District 9, Zone 3, the Lone Tree Way District to as high as $331 per year in District 2-A, Zone 10, the Black Diamond Ranch units of the Citywide District, depending on the individual parcel.
The Public Works Department’s Parks & Landscape Division maintains 34 City parks and a wide variety of landscaped areas that enhance the aesthetic of our community. This includes:
City Parks and open space areas
Medians and right-of-ways
Trails and cul-de-sacs
Coordinate and oversee the annual weed abatement project
Street lighting is maintained by the Street Maintenance Division.
3% Pay Raise for Antioch Police Officers
Under Item 8, the Council will vote on the Tentative Agreement between the City of Antioch and the Antioch Police Officers’ Association that will include a 3% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Fiscal Year 2026-27 at a cost of $661,430 and other matters. According to the City staff report, “No COLA or additional increase to uniform allowance was including in the adopted FY26/27 budget, thus requiring a budget amendment.” The previous Tentative Agreement covered the period of Sept. 1, 2021 – Aug. 31, 2025. If the council approves the agreement, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be prepared to replace the agreement and require another vote by the council.
In addition to the 3% COLA, the Tentative Agreement includes the following:
Increase to four floating holidays in a calendar year.
Travel meal reimbursement increase to $25.00 for breakfast, lunch or dinner.
Lateral Police Officer and Dispatcher new hire vacation credit of one week upon employment.
Plus, increases to the uniform allowance, adjustments to benefits, retirement and vacation, sick leave and bereavement leave language defined and/or updated, as well as updates to the department’s grievance procedure.
Following the 6:00 p.m. Closed Session meeting, the regular meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. inside the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. It can be viewed livestream on the City’s website or the City’s YouTube channel.
See separate article on the Natural Gas Pipeline Encroachment Permit Application Appeal, later.
Thank you for your excitement and support for Antioch’s Fifth Annual Multicultural Festival. After careful consideration, this year’s festival has been postponed until 2027. While we’re disappointed we won’t gather this year, we’re looking forward to bringing our community an even more memorable celebration of the diverse cultures that make Antioch so special.
Thank you for your understanding and continued support. Stay tuned for future updates!
Photos: Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder’s Office
By Dawn Kruger, Community and Media Relations Coordinator, Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department
Martinez, CA – Love is hitting the fast lane this summer. The Contra Costa County Clerk‑Recorder’s Office is excited to announce a special Destination Wedding Event at the iconic Cobra Experience Museum in Martinez on Friday, August 7, 2026. Ride into forever at this very special location.
The Cobra Experience Museum, known for its stunning collection of Shelby American classics—offers a bold, elegant automotive backdrop for couples ready to begin their journey together. Amid beautifully restored cars and the museum’s dynamic atmosphere, couples will exchange vows in a venue that blends romance with horsepower.
Event Details
Date: Friday, August 7, 2026
Location: Cobra Experience Museum, Martinez, CA
Appointments: Limited appointments available — call 925‑335‑7900 to reserve.
“Weddings mark the beginning of a lifelong adventure, and this year’s event at the Cobra Experience Museum captures that spirit perfectly,” said Kristin B. Connelly, Contra Costa County Clerk‑Recorder and Commissioner of Marriages. “Our team is excited to partner with this very special location in our county to provide an affordable, unique wedding experience.”
Whether planning an intimate elopement or a vow renewal, the Clerk‑Recorder’s staff will ensure a seamless, memorable experience for couples and up to 20 of their friends and family. Spaces are limited and filling quickly, so don’t wait to reserve your appointment.
How to Reserve
To schedule your wedding or vow renewal, contact the Contra Costa County Clerk‑Recorder’s Office at 925‑335‑7900. Staff will assist with appointment scheduling and answer any questions.
Couples must purchase a license before their ceremony appointment at the County Clerk‑Recorder’s office in Martinez.
Whole You, Powered by Spring Health, extends personalized mental health care to more than 245,000 California state employees across 153 departments
By Kristina Piersanti, 5W PR for Spring Health
SACRAMENTO, Calif., — California’s firefighters, police officers, parks departments, correctional staff, and many others spend their careers keeping communities safe and helping people through their worst days. Nationally, first responders develop PTSD at up to ten times the rate of the general population, according to a 2025 meta-analysis published in Clinical Psychology Review[1]. It’s a toll that builds quietly over the routine weight of emergency response and is compounded during high-intensity stretches like fire season.
The California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) is now providing the state’s employees and their families access to Whole You, Powered by Spring Health, CalHR’s new Employee Assistance Program (EAP) offering confidential, personalized support for care, crisis needs, work-life challenges, and everyday wellbeing. A lifelong mental health platform, Spring Health will deliver mental health care to more than 245,000 California state employees across 153 departments, and their eligible family members.
First responders receive the most extensive tier of care under the new program, delivered by trauma-informed providers with direct experience in first responder roles. Support staff within CalFire, the California Highway Patrol and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation also receive an elevated level of support, reflecting the higher-stress nature of their roles. The State’s 153,000 administrative or desk-based staff will also receive support under the new program.
CalHR was drawn to Spring Health’s proven outcomes, not just improved access. According to research published in OJPHI and JAMA Network Open, 92% of members reliably improve or recover from depression or anxiety, and members recover 5.9 weeks faster than the leading competitor, with appointments available in less than two days on average, compared to a 48-day average with traditional EAPs.
“First responders put themselves in harm’s way over and over again to protect the communities they serve. That takes a toll not just on them, but on their families too,” said George Michaels, Chief Revenue Officer at Spring Health. “Partnering with CalHR to support more than 245,000 state employees is exactly the kind of large-scale, public-sector commitment we built Spring Health to deliver on, and we’re honored to help deliver the mental health support they and their families deserve.”
“When people go to work, they shouldn’t have to leave their hearts at home,” said Shannon MacGregor, Statewide Employee Assistance Program Manager at the California Department of Human Resources. “Our first responders carry things most of us never have to. Whole You is our commitment that when they need support, it’s there — fast, confidential and built around what they’ve actually experienced.”
Whole You, Powered by Spring Health, is available now to California state employees and their eligible dependents through their department’s benefits resources. For more information on Spring Health’s lifelong mental health platform, visit our webpage.
About Spring Health
Spring Health is a global mental health company built on one AI-native platform so care follows individuals across every job, move, health plan, and life stage. Independently validated by JAMA Network Open and the Validation Institute, with 92% of members reliably improved or recovered from depression or anxiety and employers seeing a 52% reduction in total mental health claims costs, Spring Health provides personalized lifelong mental health support across self-guided tools, coaching, therapy, medication management, and specialty care. More than 170 million people worldwide have access to Spring Health, which is trusted by leading employers, health plans, and channel partners, including Highmark, Target, The Coca-Cola Company, BlackRock, Microsoft, Pfizer, and Wawa.
[1]Arena, A.F., Gregory, M., Collins, D.A.J., Vilus, B., Bryant, R., Harvey, S.B., & Deady, M. (2025). Global PTSD prevalence among active first responders and trends over recent years: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 120, 102622.
All-gender restroom in California’s State Capitol building. Video screenshot source: CA Family Council
“The law requires that every school campus have at least one all-gender restroom option available to students.”
By Greg Burt, Vice President, California Family Council
SACRAMENTO, CA — California is quietly moving toward mixed-sex bathrooms in K-12 public schools, and the state’s own Department of Education is leading the way.
A new law California Family Council opposed, SB 760, now requires schools to provide at least one “all-gender” restroom option on campus.
Passed in September 2023, the bill was cosponsored by then-State Senator Steve Glazer (D-Orinda). He, then-State Senator Nancy Skinner, now-State Sen. Tim Grayson and Assemblymembers Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Buffy Wicks, and Lori Wilson who represent Contra Costa County, voted for the bill.
The stated goal was to make transgender-identified students feel safer from bullying. But in the rush to accommodate those students’ feelings, lawmakers apparently gave little thought to a different safety question: what happens when boys are given access to girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms?
The State Is Already Building the Roadmap
The California Department of Education has an entire webpage dedicated to “All Access Restrooms,” describing it as a resource offering background information, planning and design resources, laws and regulations, and references for implementing “gender-inclusive” restrooms in K-12 schools.
The background information on that page acknowledges that “the designs of all-access restrooms have been trending in schools throughout the state, the country, and the world,” while noting there are currently no California design standards for these facilities. In other words, the trend is already underway, and the standards are still catching up.
The planning section of the CDE page is even more candid about the scope of what is being proposed. It describes “shifting from multi-user gendered restrooms and single-user all-gender restrooms to offering blocks of restroom facilities for all students;” meaning the goal is not just a single converted nurse’s bathroom tucked in a hallway. The ambition is to redesign entire blocks of school restroom facilities so that boys and girls share the same space.
What Would It Look Like?
The new all-gender bathroom designs typically eliminate urinals entirely, replacing them with individual private stalls accessible to everyone. The CDE’s resources page recommends an academic article published in the Education Sciences Journal titled “Expanding the Scope of Universal Design: Implications for Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation,” by Ellyn Couillard and Jeanne L. Higbee (2018), as a guide for implementation. That an academic paper on gender identity ideology is among the state’s recommended planning resources tells you something about the ideological framework driving these design decisions.
But keep in mind, SB 760 doesn’t require a complete redesign of a single-sex bathroom for it to become all-gender.
You Already Saw It at the State Capitol
If you want to get a glimpse of what legislators have in mind when they convert a single sex bathroom into an all gender bathroom, take a look at one of the converted male bathrooms at the state capitol, used by legislative staffers, adult visitors, and elementary school children visiting on field trips. California Family Council recently took a video of the empty bathroom located to one side of the Capitol Dome.
“I’m pretty sure most parents would object to their young children sharing a bathroom while men are using the urinals,” Burt said. “Even without the adult issue, I’ve witnessed the chaos that occurs when young boys are pouring into the same bathrooms as the girls while visiting the Capitol. The girls are not happy about it.” (Watch video tour of Capitol bathroom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okTcKcP3ACQ)
So, what should parents expect when multi-stall bathrooms are converted to all gender at their child’s school?
What the Law Actually Requires — And What It Doesn’t
It is important to be clear about what SB 760 does and does not mandate. The law requires that every school campus have at least one all-gender restroom option available to students. It could be single-stall or multi-stall. It must be supplied with menstrual products starting in 3rd grade, and it must be unlocked and easily accessible. But there are no requirements that urinals be removed or that additional privacy measures be added to stalls.
Sex-separated restrooms are still permitted, and most schools will continue to have them.
Burt explained what this means in practice for families. “How each school fulfills this new requirement is entirely up to the local school board. A conservative district might simply relabel a single-occupancy nurse’s bathroom and call it done. A progressive district could use this law as a green light to convert entire multi-stall restroom facilities to mixed-sex use. Parents need to find out right now what their district is planning,” he said.
The CDE’s planning resources make clear that the broader vision goes well beyond a single-stall accommodation in the corner of the building. It points toward a wholesale redesign of school bathroom facilities, one that treats sex-separated restrooms as a problem to be solved rather than a common-sense protection for children.
The Question Nobody in Sacramento Answered
SB 760’s supporters argued the law was needed to protect transgender-identified students from harassment, but the legislature never seriously asked the parallel question: does giving boys access to girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms create new opportunities for harassment and assault of girls?
California has seen case after case in recent years where policies designed to accommodate gender identity have created unsafe situations for female students. The discomfort of girls sharing intimate spaces with biological males is not a lesser concern. Lawmakers who refused to weigh it have not protected children. They have simply chosen which children’s safety matters.
Parents: Now Is the Time to Speak Up
Because each school board will decide how to implement SB 760 on its own campuses, parents have a real opportunity to influence what happens at their child’s school, but that window will not stay open indefinitely. Decisions about restroom redesigns and facility changes get made early in the budget and planning process, often before most parents are even aware the conversation is happening.
If you want a say in how your district handles this new requirement, call your school board member and school administrators now. Ask them directly: how does our district plan to fulfill the SB 760 all-gender restroom requirement? Will existing sex-separated restrooms be preserved? Will multi-stall facilities be converted? Every parent deserves to know the answers.
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.
By Laura Cassell, Assessment Appeals Board Secretary
(Martinez, CA) — Are you an experienced real estate, appraisal, accounting, or legal professional looking for a meaningful way to give back? The Contra Costa County Assessment Appeals Board is seeking qualified individuals to serve as board members and help ensure property tax assessments are fair, accurate, and impartial.
As a board member, you’ll hear and decide property tax assessment appeals, playing an important role in protecting the integrity of the County’s property tax system while serving the community.
Board Member Compensation
Board members receive:
$200 for a half-day meeting
$300 for a full-day meeting
$400 for each additional consecutive meeting day
Mileage reimbursement
Meeting Schedule
Meetings are typically held Thursdays at 9:00 a.m., except the first Thursday of each month. The Board recesses during May and June while the Assessor closes the assessment roll. Because many appeals are resolved through negotiations or withdrawals before a hearing, some scheduled meetings may be canceled.
Who Can Apply?
Applicants do not need to live in Contra Costa County or represent the district in which they reside. Qualified candidates must have at least five years of professional experience in California in one of the following fields:
Certified Public Accountant or Public Accountant
Licensed Real Estate Broker
Attorney
Property Appraiser accredited by a nationally recognized professional organization
Property Appraiser certified by the California Office of Real Estate Appraisers or the State Board of Equalization
Applicants must submit documentation verifying their qualifying experience with their application to the Clerk of the Board. Individuals who have worked in a county assessor’s office within the past three years are not eligible to serve.
Ready to Make a Difference?
If you’re committed to public service and bringing your professional expertise to an important community role, we encourage you to apply. Interested individuals may apply online application link, request an application by emailing the Clerk of the Board at clerkoftheboard@cob.cccoounty.us, or visit the Clerk of the Board office at:
For more information about the application process, call the Clerk of the Board at (925) 655-2000. Additional information is available through the California State Board of Equalization.
