Endorse Map D keeping their districts mostly the same

Antioch remains split but along different lines

County receives $7.4 million more in federal American Rescue Plan Act funds

By Daniel Borsuk

With scant public testimony and only three complete community map submissions, during their meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 9, Contra Costa Supervisors decided to move forward with the 2021 redistricting effort by selecting Map D as the preferred alternative. It creates proposed supervisorial boundaries that will be in place for the next 10 years. CCCBOS Redistricting 2021 NOV 9 presentation

With the clock ticking for supervisors to wrap up the federally mandated redistricting effort by Dec. 15, county officials have not received an abundance of public input at public hearings and workshops on proposed supervisorial maps, but after supervisors again heard meager public input on the proposed maps, the elected officials decided to move forward to comply with federal law.

At the end of day, of the four maps proposed by county staff and the three complete alternative maps submitted by the public, supervisors chose Map D mainly because it presents the fewest revisions from the current districts. However, it offers districts with the greatest deviation of 9.77% in population between districts of all four maps offered by county staff. It only splits up the cities of Concord, Antioch and Walnut Creek.

Impacts

The chosen map results in Districts 3 and 5 with the least population, 11,568 and 11,425 fewer residents than average, respectively, and Districts 2 and 4 with the most population of 11,264 and 9,273 greater than average. So, Districts 3 and 5 Supervisors will represent about 21,000 to 23,000 fewer residents than Districts 2 and 4. District 1 will have the lowest deviation from average population of just 2,455 residents or 1.05%.

Map D keeps Antioch split in two between Districts 3 and 5, as the city currently is, but along different streets. This time the districts are split along Somersville Road and Auto Center Drive and the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way.

It moves Alamo, Blackhawk and Tassajara Valley from the current District 3 into District 2, allowing them to join the rest of the San Ramon Valley.

It reunites Pinole moving a portion from the current District 5 into District 1 in West County.

It keeps the Rossmoor community of Walnut Creek split from the rest of that city, and leaves it in District 2, while the rest of the city will be in District 4.

The map also shifts a portion of Concord from District 4 into District 5.

District 4 Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, who announced she will not seek re-election next year, liked Map D because it presents the “least intrusion into Concord.”  District 4 would also pick up the Morgan Territory area.

“If I could have all of Antioch I would,” said Board Chair Burgis.

District 1 Supervisor John Gioia, whose seat is also up for election next year, acknowledged with Map D his district cannot go beyond Pinole and El Sobrante. The neighboring and nearby communities of Hercules and Crockett will be fully represented by District 5 Supervisor Federal Glover.

Alternative Maps

There were only 12 community submissions with eight complete maps and four community of interest maps, using the county’s online mapping tool. Two of the complete maps were submitted by one person and three by another, So, only five people submitted complete, alternative maps.  CCCBOS Redistricting 2021 Community Submission Maps Oct05&19    CCCBOS Redistricting 2021 Community Submission Maps Nov09

Two of the complete maps offered total population deviations between the districts of 10.55% and 13.38%, which is greater than the 10% maximum deviation legally allowed. The population of each district can only be 5% greater or lesser than average. The other five maps split up communities of interest

The community submission of a complete map of the five districts, by the Contra Costa Herald, complied with the population deviation requirement of no greater or fewer than 5% from average. The map offers districts with the least population deviation of just 1.67% compared to the four maps proposed by county staff, while respecting both city and community boundaries, except for Concord and Antioch, the county’s largest cities. In general, the Contra Costa Herald map uses major city streets as the dividing lines, such as A Street in Antioch, and the districts are as compact as possible.

County Receives $7.4 million in American Rescue Plan Act Funds

Supervisors learned additional federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds will be heading to county coffers in ensuing months after $7.4 million have been spent during the first quarter of 2021.

The county Employment and Human Services Department has received $4,694,377, the county Health Services Department has received $2,604,182 and the Department of Conservation and Development has received $90,215, said assistant County Administrative Officer Tim Elway.

Through Sept. 30, county departments spent $71.6 million ARPA funds for rental assistance services. The Health Services Department submitted an expenditure of $20.9 million for pandemic responses.

Last August, the County Administrator’s Office had identified $317,327.304 in ARPA funds allocated to the county. Of that amount, $127,606.231 had been received by the county and represents two of the largest funding sources for the county – $112,029,451 for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund and $15,576,780 for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program.

Hire New Director of Child Support Services from San Joaquin County

Supervisors voted 5-0 to hire San Joaquin County Director of Child Support Services Lori Cruz as the new Contra Costa County Director of Child Support Services at an annual salary of $345,796 of which $56,489 are pension costs.

Cruz, a California licensed attorney, who holds a Juris Doctor from Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, and a Bachelor of Arts Political Science and Print Journalism from the University of Southern California, has served as the Director of Child Support Services in San Joaquin County, the same county where Contra Costa County Administrator Monica Nina was county administrator until her appointment late last year.

Cruz replaces the current director of child support services Melinda Self, who is retiring on Dec. 31, 2021.

Upon accepting the supervisors’ hiring, Ms. Cruz said, “I can bring my 31 years of child support experience to Contra Costa County and bring positive outcomes to your constituents.”

Cruz, who has been a member of the California State Bar since 1989, has served as director of San Joaquin County Child Support Services from April 2014 to present date. From June 2002 to April 2014, she was employed as the Deputy Director of Operations of the Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department. During her career she developed programs to analyze departmental data to measure performance and effectiveness of services, leading a statewide effort to obtain significant data to measure performance and effectiveness of services, and leading a statewide effort to obtain a new funding model for local child support agencies.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

By Sergeant James Stenger #3604, Antioch Police Investigations Bureau

On Saturday, November 13, 2021, at about 10:40 pm, Antioch Police Dispatch started receiving calls about gunshots in the area of Travesio Way. Officers arrived on scene and located a 36-year-old male on the sidewalk in the 5200 block of Travesio Way suffering from fatal gunshot wounds.

The Antioch Police Department Investigations Bureau and CSI team responded and took over this investigation. This investigation is in the early stages and there is no further information to release at this time. There are no suspect descriptions, and no one is in custody.

Additional inquiries or information can be directed to Antioch Police Detective John Cox at (925) 779-6866 or by emailing jcox@antiochca.gov. Anonymous tips or information about this – or any other incident – can be sent via text to 274637 (CRIMES) with the keyword ANTIOCH.

For Congressional, State Senate, State Assembly, Board of Equalization districts; changes will affect who represents Antioch; more public input encouraged

SACRAMENTO, CA—On Wednesday, the 2020 California Citizens Redistricting Commission released draft maps for the state’s Congressional, State Senate, Assembly and Board of Equalization districts ahead of the CA Supreme Court mandated November 15, 2021 deadline.

“We are finally here. We proudly present these draft maps to the people of California as a starting point for public discussion. These are not intended to be final maps and we strongly encourage Californians to continue weighing in until we get it right,” stated Commission Chair Trena Turner. “A global pandemic and delayed census data would not stop this commission from delivering on its promise to create maps that encourage fair representation. We will have final maps completed and certified by the December 27, 2021 deadline. There is still plenty of time for the public to get involved. We urge you to join us because everything is on the lines.”

A major consideration in redrawing the Congressional districts was the fact that California lost a seat in the decennial reapportionment due to population shifts away from the state. That reduces the delegation in the House of Representatives from 53 to 52. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, across the country, the Golden State was joined by Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia in losing one Congressional seat each. Oregon, Montana, Colorado, North Carolina and Florida each gained one seat, while Texas gained two Congressional seats.

According to an SFGate.com news report, “In the Bay Area…Contra Costa County has been the biggest source of complaints…some…Antioch residents have complained about African American neighborhoods being split up, while residents south of them in the Tri-Valley area are annoyed that San Ramon and Dublin were kept in separate congressional districts.”

Using the multitude of communities of interest testimony the Commission received throughout the summer, they assessed how that testimony could potentially inform district boundaries considering the tradeoffs that needed to be made in eventual maps. The Commission produced three sets of visualizations (October 27-29, November 2-4, November 7-9) that incorporated additional public input to evolve into draft maps.

Draft maps can be found here and below.

Approved Draft Maps
CONGRESS

• 11.10.21 Congressional Draft Map
• 11.10.21 Congressional Shape Files
• 11.10.21 Congressional Equivalency Files

STATE SENATE

• 11.10.21 State Senate Draft Map
• 11.10.21 State Senate Shape Files
• 11.10.21 State Senate Equivalency Files

ASSEMBLY

• 11.10.21 Assembly Draft Map
• 11.10.21 Assembly Shape Files
• 11.10.21 Assembly Equivalency Files

BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

• 11.10.21 Board of Equalization Draft Map
• 11.10.21 Board of Equalization Shape Files
• 11.10.21 Board of Equalization Equivalency Files

We encourage the public to provide feedback using this form.

Public comment shall be taken for at least 14 days from the date of public display of the first preliminary statewide (draft) maps of the Congressional, State Senatorial, Assembly, and State Board of Equalization districts. The Commission shall not display any other map for public comment during the 14-day period.

Draft Map Public Input Meeting Schedule
November 17, 2021—Congressional District Feedback
November 18, 2021—Assembly District Feedback
November 19, 2021—Senate District Feedback
November 20, 2021—Board of Equalization & Any District Feedback
November 22, 2021—Any District Feedback
November 23, 2021—Any District Feedback

Public input meeting appointments can be made here.

In accordance with the California Constitution, the Commission followed these criteria, in this order, to draw district maps:

1. Districts must be of equal population to comply with the U.S. Constitution.
2. Districts must comply with the Voting Rights Act to ensure that minorities have an equal 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 cities, counties, 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 a more distant population. This requirement refers to density, not shape. Census blocks cannot be split.
6. Where practicable each Senate District should be comprised of two complete and adjacent Assembly Districts, and Board of Equalization districts should be comprised of 10 complete and adjacent State Senate Districts.

In addition, the place of residence of any incumbent or political candidate may not be considered in the creation of a map, and districts may not be drawn for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent, political candidate, or political party.

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 www.WeDrawTheLinesCA.org.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

From military.com

Veterans Day, formerly known as Armistice Day, was originally set as a U.S. legal holiday to honor the end of World War I, which officially took place on November 11, 1918. In legislation that was passed in 1938, November 11 was “dedicated to the cause of world peace and to be hereafter celebrated and known as ‘Armistice Day.'” As such, this new legal holiday honored World War I veterans.

In 1954, after having been through both World War II and the Korean War, the 83rd U.S. Congress — at the urging of the veterans service organizations — amended the Act of 1938 by striking out the word “Armistice” and inserting the word “Veterans.” With the approval of this legislation on June 1, 1954, Nov. 11 became a day to honor American veterans of all wars.

In 1968, the Uniforms Holiday Bill ensured three-day weekends for federal employees by celebrating four national holidays on Mondays: Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Columbus Day. Under this bill, Veterans Day was moved to the fourth Monday of October. Many states did not agree with this decision and continued to celebrate the holiday on its original date. The first Veterans Day under the new law was observed with much confusion on Oct. 25, 1971.

Finally, on September 20, 1975, President Gerald R. Ford signed a law which returned the annual observance of Veterans Day to its original date of Nov. 11, beginning in 1978. Since then, the Veterans Day holiday has been observed on Nov. 11.

Celebrating the Veterans Day Holiday

If the Nov. 11 holiday falls on a non-workday — Saturday or Sunday — the holiday is observed by the federal government on Monday (if the holiday falls on Sunday) or Friday (if the holiday falls on Saturday). Federal government closings are established by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. State and local government closings are determined locally, and non- government businesses can close or remain open as they see fit, regardless of federal, state or local government operation determinations.

United States Senate Resolution 143, which was passed on Aug. 4, 2001, designated the week of Nov. 11 through Nov. 17, 2001, as “National Veterans Awareness Week.” The resolution calls for educational efforts directed at elementary and secondary school students concerning the contributions and sacrifices of veterans.

The difference between Veterans Day and Memorial Day

Memorial Day honors servicemembers who died in service to their country or as a result of injuries incurred during battle. Deceased veterans are also remembered on Veterans Day but the day is set aside to thank and honor living veterans who served honorably in the military – in wartime or peacetime.

From the Herald – thank you to our military veterans for your service. We know freedom isn’t free and without your service and sacrifice Americans wouldn’t enjoy the freedoms we do, today. Remembering that and honoring you, today.

Police block lanes on Lone Tree Way near Sutter Delta backing up traffic

By Sergeant Brian Rose #4309, Antioch Police Department, Field Services Bureau

On Wednesday, Nov. 10 at 10:50 a.m., Antioch Police officers responded to the report of shots fired at the Sinclair Gas Station located at 3720 Lone Tree Way. Moments later, a local hospital called APD dispatch and stated two shooting victims, both adult males, arrived at the emergency room. One of victims was suffering from a gunshot wound to the abdomen and the other sustained a gunshot wound to his head.

At the time of this writing, one of the victims is in grave condition and the other is in critical condition. The suspects are still outstanding. Investigators are actively following up on suspect leads.

Multiple bullet casings could be seen between the door to the gas station convenience store and closest set of pumps. In addition, police had some of the lanes on Lone Tree Way near Sutter Delta Medical Center blocked off backing up traffic.

Information can be directed to Antioch Police Detective Whitaker at (925) 779-6890 or by emailing wwhitaker@antiochca.gov. Anonymous tips or information about this – or any other incident – can be sent via text to 274637 (CRIMES) with the keyword ANTIOCH.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

Mails letter, again instead of emailing it, further delaying process; proponents used county template which is different than state template that the city clerk follows; revised petition submitted Tuesday afternoon

By Allen Payton

On Saturday, Nov. 6 proponents for the recall of Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe received by certified mail a second letter denying their petition paperwork from City Clerk Ellie Householder because it didn’t match the format she has chosen to follow. In addition, this time she added an unneeded requirement that wasn’t mentioned in her first denial letter. It’s the second time the city clerk has rejected the Thorpe’s recall petition. (See related article)

The challenge the organizers faced was the template they followed for the recall petition format they received from the County Clerk is slightly different than the one from the California Secretary of State, which Householder follows. Contra Costa County Recall Petition Template      Secretary of State Recall Petition Template

Under “Necessary Corrections” Householder’s letter reads the same for the first two items. The new correction reads, “Must include ‘Official Top Funders’ pursuant to Elections Code section 107(b).”

Kathy Cabrera, one of the leaders of the recall effort, who served Thorpe with the recall notice, said, “If that really needed to be corrected, why didn’t she include it in the first letter? But in fact, it doesn’t.”

That’s because the requirement is only if an official committee has been formed, which the recall proponents haven’t done, yet.

Asked if they had formed a committee she said, “No and there was nothing that would even say we had a committee.”

The Recall Procedures Guide on the California Secretary of State’s website, for local officials on page 16, reads as follows:

Official Top Funders Disclosure Requirements

For any recall petition for which the circulation is paid for by a committee formed pursuant to Government Code 82013, an Official Top Funders disclosure shall be included on the petition or in a separate document presented to a prospective signer of the petition. (Elections Code § 107(b))

As for the first two corrections, Cabrera stated, “We followed the template used for the petition for Householder’s recall from the school board and that was accepted by the County Clerk.”

That complaint is in addition to the fact that they were forced to wait two extra days – both times – because Householder refused to provide them with her letter via email or in person. That is delaying the signature gathering process because proponents must first receive a letter from the city clerk that their petition paperwork has been approved.

“Had we received her letter by email on Thursday, we could have had the corrected paperwork back to her on Friday to start another ten days,” Cabrera stated. “She’s only required to provide it in writing. email is in writing.”

Questions for Householder

An email was sent to the city clerk on Saturday asking, “why does your latest letter, dated Nov. 4, 2021, denying the petition of the proponents for Mayor Thorpe’s recall, list the requirement that they disclose their top funders, when they haven’t yet formed a committee? Is a committee name on any of the documents they submitted to the City Clerk’s office? If not, why would you assume they formed one? Or did you simply make a mistake in your latest letter? Also, even if it was a requirement, why didn’t you include that in the first letter you sent them?

“Is it true, as has been shared, that you and Lamar have been working together on this, and that you have obtained the advice of a consultant to assist you in responding to the proponents of his recall, and to handle the paperwork and process for it?

“Finally, if the proponents followed the same format provided by the County Clerk’s office, which was also used for the petition for your recall that the County Clerk’s office approved, how is their latest petition submission for the mayor’s recall incorrect, as you cited in the first two sections of the Necessary Corrections?”

Householder did not respond to any questions as of publication time Tuesday night, Nov. 9.

Different Petition Templates Used by County and City

“We spoke with the county clerk’s office staff on Monday, and we ended up using the state’s template, this time,” Cabrera said. “Because the template we had used before was the County’s. The Householder recall petition was approved using that template. But it’s different than the state’s template.”

“It’s not very different but enough that one item needed to be changed,” she continued. “But the third requirement of disclosing the Official Top Funders does not apply to us, because we haven’t formed a committee and we don’t meet the requirements to complete a Form 410, yet.”

That’s the form required once a committee is formed or if $1,000 is received from one individual or $2,000 from more than one.

“There are multiple thresholds, and we haven’t met any of them, yet,” Cabrera added.

“One of the corrections was so ambiguous we couldn’t figure out exactly what she wants,” she continued. “We sequentially numbered the proponents’ names following the example of the recall papers for Governor Newsom.”

When they submitted the petitions both times, the names of the proponents weren’t numbered.

“We even made sure the first paragraph wasn’t indented,” Cabrera explained. “It does say the petition has to be identical to the template. But Householder was being difficult. So, we removed the indentation and numbered the names.”

They reviewed every letter and even used a measuring tape to make sure the box next to where people sign is one inch from the edge, as required.

Another minor difference is the county petition template doesn’t have a place for the signature gatherer to date the form and the state’s does. So, they added that, as well

Organizers Submit Revised Petition

The revised paperwork was submitted Tuesday afternoon with a cover letter. Thorpe recall petition-#3 cover ltr

“Petition number three was graciously accepted by Ms. Householder. She actually date stamped it and provided a copy of it. She didn’t do that before.”

Asked if Householder approved the petition, Cabrera responded, “No. She didn’t approve it. She accepted it as filed.”

“Although we feel we shouldn’t have had to submit the paperwork for a third time, because we followed the county’s template used for Householder’s recall, that was for school board and this is for the mayor,” she concluded.

“Now we wait 10 calendar days. I think that’s the 19th,” Cabrera added.

 

By Jaime Coffee, Information Officer II, California Highway Patrol

Using cell phones, eating or drinking, adjusting a radio, or simply talking with friends are all activities teens engage in every day, but these activities become life-threatening hazards while driving.   Unfortunately, many of these distractions will lead to crashes resulting in an injury or death. 

To address these concerns, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) is partnering with traffic safety organizations promoting safe driving behaviors for teens.  The grant-funded Teen Distracted Drivers campaign consists of an education component that will allow for CHP officers and traffic safety partners to make appearances at schools and community events throughout the state. Distracted driving enforcement operations for this grant began October 1, 2021, and will continue through September 30, 2022.

According to the California Department of Motor Vehicles, there are nearly 750,000 licensed teenage drivers in California.  Data from the CHP’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System indicated that in 2019 there were nearly 44,000 crashes involving teen drivers between 15 to 19 years of age, including 231 fatal crashes.  Although preliminary figures for 2020 indicated a drop in total crashes involving teen drivers in California, the number of teen driver-involved fatal crashes increased to 258.

“The combination of inattention and inexperience behind the wheel can lead to tragedy,” said CHP Commissioner Amanda Ray.  “This grant will assist our officers in keeping California’s roads safe, while addressing California’s distracted driving crisis among the state’s teens.”

Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

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

 

The East Bay Regional Park District honors active and retired military members on Veterans Day with free access and parking at the regional parks, including Ardenwood Historic Farm in Fremont. Fee waiver only covers parking and park entry. Fee waiver DOES NOT include dog fees, boat launch or inspection fees, fishing permits, or concessions, such as merry-go-round, train, etc.

The East Bay Regional Park District is the largest regional park system in the nation, comprising 73 parks, 55 miles of shoreline, and over 1,300 miles of trails for hiking, biking, horseback riding, and environmental education. The Park District receives more than 25 million visits annually throughout Alameda and Contra Costa counties in the San Francisco Bay Area.