SACRAMENTO, CA — In a stirring and impassioned announcement before his congregation last week, Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills (a congregation of over 10,000) issued an urgent call to action for Californians: mark your calendars and make your way to Sacramento on Tuesday, August 19th for a rally and lobby day opposing Assembly Bill 495, a bill critics say obliterates parental rights and creates legal loopholes making child kidnapping easy.
“I have to tell you, if this bill passes, I am going to ask you to leave the state of California,” Pastor Hibbs declared from the pulpit. “You got to get out. You got to run with your kids. You got to go.”
The bill is the first piece of legislation authored by newly elected Assemblywoman Celeste Rodriguez (D–San Fernando). She sold AB 495 as a “compassionate” solution for children of detained immigrant parents. But opponents warn the measure does far more, and far worse, than what its title suggests.
The Threat of AB 495: A Legal Loophole for Kidnapping?
The “Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025” would allow unrelated adults, broadly defined as an “adult caregiver” with a “mentoring relationship with the child” to assume custody-like control over a child through a one-page Caregiver’s Authorization Affidavit. No court appearance. No notarization. No parental consent or notification. No background check. No verification of identity required.
“Presto, someone walks away with your child,” warned attorney and president of Our Duty-USA Erin Friday, who called AB 495 “a child trafficker’s and kidnapper’s dream bill.”
“California wants to let someone that is not related to your child remove her from school, enroll her in any other school in the state, authorize any medical treatment of her, including mental health services and drugs, without the parents’ notice and knowledge or consent. This is not fear-mongering. I’m not being hyperbolic,” she said. “These unintended consequences are terrifying, and they are unavoidable.”
Even medical decisions, including psychiatric drug prescriptions and sex-trait modification procedures, could be authorized by these unvetted adults without the knowledge or consent of the child’s parents.
August 19th Rally: Mobilizing for Parental Rights
Real Impact and Capitol Resource Institute have pulled together a coalition of parental rights advocates, legal experts, pastors, and concerned citizens, to hold the “NO on AB 495 Rally and Lobby Day” featuring Pastor Hibbs as keynote speaker. Other speakers include best-selling author and speaker Heidi St. John and Jonathan Keller, President of California Family Council, with more speakers to be announced soon.
“I’m going to ask all of you to drive, bus, fly, I don’t care how you get there,” Hibbs told his church. “We’re looking for a minimum of 5000 people to be there that day.”
Schedule – Tuesday, August 19, 2025
1:00 PM PT – Rally Begins (West Steps of Capitol, 1315 10th Street, Sacramento)
2:00 PM PT – Lobby Training
2:30 PM PT – Legislative Office Visits
This isn’t the first time Hibbs has rallied thousands to the Capitol. A previous event back in 2022 drew nearly 2000 people to the Capitol to protest a bill to legalize infanticide. Organizers hope to top that turnout this time.
A State in Crisis
Hibbs’ warning is dire, and he isn’t mincing words. “I would not subject my child to one second in this public school system with this new law, AB 495,” he thundered.
California Family Council agrees the bill is incredibly dangerous. “AB 495 is a grave threat to the God-given responsibility of parents to raise and protect their children,” said Greg Burt, CFC’s Vice President. “It undermines every safeguard we have in place for child welfare and does so in the name of compassion. But compassion without guardrails is not mercy, it is madness.”
A Biblical Call to Courage
Pastor Hibbs was clear: this is a line in the sand.
“If you have kids in the state of California and this passes, you gotta go,” he said. “Your child’s safety is number one in your life, and I don’t care if you like the weather, and I never thought that day would ever come when I would encourage you to leave.
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.
SACRAMENTO, CA — The California legislature continues to disregard the rights of parents and ignore their religious beliefs regarding their children with the introduction of AB 1084, a bill that expedites the process for changing a person’s name and sex on official documents—including birth certificates and marriage licenses—based on “gender identity” rather than biological reality.
While author Assemblyman Rick Zbur (D-Beverly Hills) says the bill is a necessary response to efforts making it “harder for transgender people to live safely and openly as their authentic selves,” it is in fact a profound assault on both truth and parental rights. AB 1084 is not just another procedural update. “Not only does it further legitimize the false idea that sex is a choice,” said Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council. “But it’s designed to sideline the very people God has charged with the care and guidance of children: their parents.”
Biological Reality Can’t Be Legislated Away
A person cannot change their sex. Sex is not “assigned at birth”—it is observed and recorded. It is an immutable, biological reality encoded in every cell of our bodies. It is not up for revision with a court order or a fill-in-the-blank on a government form.
But AB 1084 expedites this legal fiction, compelling courts to issue approval for name and sex changes to reflect not biological sex, but subjective gender identity within two weeks.
The Real Target: Parental Authority
While the entire premise of the bill is flawed, its most egregious offense is against parents.
AB 1084 claims to honor parental rights by requiring both living parents to approve a minor’s request to change their name and sex on legal documents. But this is a bait and switch. If one parent objects, the court will only consider the objection valid if it demonstrates “good cause.” And what is explicitly not good cause? Belief in biological sex.
You read that right. Under AB 1084, a court must disregard a parent’s objection if it is based on the belief that their child’s proposed gender identity does not align with their biological sex. In other words, if you believe—scientifically, morally, or religiously—that sex is binary and unchangeable, your views are disqualified from legal consideration. Here is how the text of the bill explains it: “(D) A hearing date shall not be set in the proceeding unless an objection is timely filed and shows good cause for opposing the name change. Objections based solely on concerns that the proposed change is not the petitioner’s actual gender identity or gender assigned at birth shall not constitute good cause.”
This isn’t just bad policy. It’s discriminatory, unconstitutional, and tyrannical.
A Constitutional Crisis
The U.S. Supreme Court has long upheld the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the Court declared: “The child is not the mere creature of the state.” And in Troxel v. Granville (2000), the Court reaffirmed that “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children… is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.”
Yet AB 1084 places the state as arbiter of a child’s identity over and above the rights of parents. It effectively says: “Parents, you can raise your child—unless your views clash with state-endorsed gender ideology.”
This is an ideological test for parental rights. And it must be resisted.
A Slippery and Dangerous Precedent
Once the state arrogates to itself the power to nullify parental objections rooted in deeply held religious or biological convictions, where does it stop?
Will it override a parent’s objection to irreversible medical procedures?
Will it compel schools to keep secrets from parents about their children’s gender identity?
Will it use the denial of “affirmation” as grounds to remove children from their homes
A False Solution to Real Pain
The advocates of AB 1084 claim that this bill is about protecting transgender and nonbinary individuals from discrimination. But true compassion never requires us to lie. A government that redefines reality to affirm feelings is not protecting anyone—it’s merely swapping one kind of harm for another.
Children, especially minors struggling with gender confusion, need truth, not affirmation of delusion. They need wise, loving guidance—especially from parents, not judges. By empowering minors to legally alter their identity with minimal pushback, California encourages life-altering decisions without adequate reflection or maturity.
And these changes are not harmless. Once legal documents are changed, it can set off a domino effect leading to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and irreversible surgeries—often before a child’s brain is even fully developed.
What Must Be Done
California Family Council stands firmly opposed to AB 1084 and any law that undermines biological truth and parental authority. We urge the legislature to reject this bill and call on citizens to raise their voices in protest.
We are also calling on constitutional lawyers and religious liberty advocates to prepare challenges to this legislation should it pass. It will not stand the test of judicial scrutiny—and it certainly will not stand the test of time.
Bill Status
This bill has already passed the Assembly Judiciary and Health Committees and now sits in the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File. On May 23 the committee will announce its decision on whether the bill progresses to the full Assembly for a vote.
About California Family Council
California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.
2025 Greater Bay Area District Attorney Summit attendees. Source: Diana Becton for District Attorney
Elected District Attorneys and senior prosecutors from across the Bay, Northern California
By Bobbi Mauler, Executive Assistant, Contra Costa District Attorney
Area and beyond gathered in Contra Costa County for the 2025 Greater Bay Area DA Summit. The all-day, invitational summit brought together leaders to collaborate on legal strategies and share innovations that address some of the most urgent challenges facing the criminal justice system. Now in its third year, the summit has become a critical regional forum since its inception in Santa Clara County in 2022 and continuing in Napa County in 2023. The 2025 summit took place on May 16th at the Veterans Memorial Center in Lafayette.
Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton opened the summit with welcoming remarks that set the tone for the day’s discussions. In her address, DA Becton emphasized the importance of cross-jurisdictional partnerships and proactive approaches to public safety:
“The Greater Bay Area Summit has proven itself to be a constructive gathering where elected DAs from the Bay Area and beyond can share ideas, engage in robust discussions, and find practical solutions to increase public safety in the communities we serve. By coming together, we strengthen our collective ability to adapt to emerging technologies and respond to evolving criminal trends.”
Following her remarks, a series of expert-led panels explored timely and complex topics, including:
• The Use of Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technology in Criminal Prosecution
• Proposition 36 Implementation
• Emerging Challenges with Race-Blind Charging
• Legal Strategies in Combating Organized Retail Theft
Under District Attorney Becton’s leadership, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office
has remained at the forefront of innovation, equity, and public safety. Hosting the summit further
reinforced her office’s role as a convener on issues that demand both legal insight and community engagement.
The 2025 Greater Bay Area District Attorney’s Summit was attended by the elected District Attorneys from the following counties:
Diana Becton, District Attorney of Contra Costa County
Lori Frugoli, District Attorney of Marin County
Ron Freitas, District Attorney of San Joaquin County
Allison Haley, District Attorney of Napa County
Thien Ho, District Attorney of Sacramento County
Brooke Jenkins, District Attorney of San Francisco County
Ursula Jones Dickson, District Attorney of Alameda County
Jeannine Pacioni, District Attorney of Monterey County
Jeff Reisig, District Attorney of Yolo County
Carla Rodriguez, District Attorney of Sonoma County
Jeffrey Rosen, District Attorney of Santa Clara County
Steve Wagstaffe, District Attorney of San Mateo County
In a post on her campaign Facebook page, Becton wrote about the Summit, “What an exciting day! I was honored to invite and host 12 elected Distrist Attorneys and senior prosecutors from across the Bay Area and beyond as we gathered in Contra Costa County for the 2025 Greater Bay Area DA Summit.
The all-day, invitational summit brought together leaders to collaborate on legal strategies and share innovations that address some of the most urgent challenges facing the criminal justice system.”
SACRAMENTO, CA — In a pivotal ruling for parental rights, U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez refused to dismiss a class-action lawsuit against California’s controversial policies requiring educators to keep parents uninformed when their children express gender confusion or request to change their names and pronouns at school. The decision, handed down on January 7, 2025, denies the motions filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the California Department of Education to throw out the case by arguing that gender secrecy policies were “just a suggestion,” and not mandated on school districts. Now the suit can move forward toward potentially overturning the state’s ban parent notification policies with the passage of AB 1955 last year.
Teachers Not Required to Keep Secrets from Parents In a powerful statement addressing the rights of educators, Judge Benitez clarified that teachers are under no obligation to follow policies that compel them to deceive or withhold information from parents. Judge Benitez emphasized that “teachers do not completely forfeit their First Amendment rights in exchange for public school employment.” He noted that while teachers may be required to deliver specific curricula, the government cannot force them to act unlawfully or infringe on parental rights. Benitez agreed with the plaintiffs that state policies compel them to act in ways that are “intentionally deceptive and unlawful,” violating the teachers’ First Amendment rights.
Upholding Parents’ Constitutional Rights Judge Benitez also emphasized long-standing constitutional protections for parents in the upbringing and health decisions of their children. “Parents’ rights to make decisions concerning the care, custody, control, and medical care of their children is one of the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests that Americans enjoy,” he wrote, rebuking the state’s argument that parents have no fundamental right to be informed of their child’s gender identity at school. “However, under California state policy and EUSD policy, if a school student expresses words or actions during class that are visible signs that the child is dealing with gender incongruity or possibly gender dysphoria, teachers are ordered not to inform the parents.”
Ultimately, the judge denied the state’s efforts to dismiss the case, stating, “There are no controlling decisions that would compel this Court to limit or infringe parental rights, notwithstanding the State’s laudable goals of protecting children.”
The ruling directly challenges California’s “Parental Exclusion Policies,” which have allowed schools to hide critical gender identity information from families under the guise of student privacy. Judge Benitez concluded that parents have a constitutional right to know about their child’s gender incongruity, especially when such conditions could lead to significant mental health issues like depression or suicidal ideation.
Broad Implications for State Policy The lawsuit is now free to move forward, and if successful, it could dismantle policies statewide that currently compel educators to bypass parents on sensitive matters concerning gender identity. This would represent a significant victory for parental rights advocates who argue that these policies infringe on the fundamental rights of families and erode trust between parents and schools.
Legal Counsel Speaks Out Paul Jonna, Special Counsel for the Thomas More Society, Partner LiMandri & Jonna LLP,and a lead attorney on the case, hailed the decision as a milestone moment for parental rights. “We are incredibly pleased that the Court has denied all attempts to throw out our landmark challenge to California’s parental exclusion and gender secrecy regime,” Jonna said in a press release. “Judge Benitez’s order rightly highlights the sacrosanct importance of parents’ rights in our constitutional order and the First Amendment protections afforded to parents and teachers.”
Jonna emphasized the broader goal of achieving statewide relief for all parents and teachers affected by the secrecy policies, adding, “We look forward to continuing to prosecute this case against California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the other defendants, to put this issue to rest once and for all—by obtaining class-wide relief on behalf of all teachers and parents.”
Reaction from California Family Council Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council, praised the ruling for upholding parental rights. “This decision is a critical step toward restoring the sacred bond between parents and children,” Burt stated. “When government policies force schools to keep secrets from families, they cross a dangerous line. Judge Benitez’s ruling reaffirms that parental rights are not a secondary concern but a cornerstone of our constitutional freedoms.”
A Collision of Rights Judge Benitez also addressed the tension between a child’s right to privacy and parents’ right to be informed. While acknowledging the competing interests, he concluded, “In a collision of rights as between parents and child, the long-recognized federal constitutional rights of parents must eclipse the state rights of the child.” This statement sets a clear precedent favoring parental oversight in matters of health and education.
Looking Ahead As Mirabelli v. Olson proceeds, the case is likely to garner increased attention, setting the stage for a broader examination of how states balance student privacy with parental rights. The outcome could redefine policies across California and potentially influence similar debates nationwide.
About California Family Council California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.
Includes reckless driving & sideshow enforcement, electric bicycle safety, autonomous vehicles, retail theft, more
SACRAMENTO – As we head into the new year, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) is highlighting the new public safety laws that were passed during this year’s legislative session and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Unless otherwise noted, the laws referenced below take effect on January 1, 2025.
Assembly Bill 1978 permits storing a vehicle when an individual is arrested but not taken into custody for obstructing or placing a barricade a highway or off-street parking facility for purposes of aiding a speed contest or exhibition of speed.
Assembly Bill 2186 permits the arrest and custody of individuals engaged in an exhibition of speed in an off-street parking facility. It also permits the impounding of the individual’s vehicle for not more than 30 days.
Assembly Bill 2645 allows transportation agencies operating electronic toll collection systems to share real-time license plate data with law enforcement during active emergency alerts, such as AMBER, Ebony, or Feather Alerts. This legislation eliminates the need for a search warrant in such situations, enabling quicker responses to locate suspect vehicles linked to emergencies, such as child abductions.
Beginning January 1, 2026, SB 1271 focuses on improving the safety standards for electric bicycles (e-bikes), powered mobility devices, and related lithium-ion batteries. It requires these devices and their components, such as batteries and charging systems, to be tested by accredited laboratories to meet specific safety standards. The bill also mandates labeling these products to show compliance with safety regulations, ensuring consumers are informed. Furthermore, it prohibits distributing, selling, or leasing e-bikes and related equipment unless they meet these standards, aiming to reduce risks like fire hazards and electrical malfunctions. Beginning January 1, 2028, the bill would prohibit a person from renting or offering for rental an electric bicycle, powered mobility device, charging system, or storage battery unless it has been tested to the specified safety standard.
Assembly Bill 1774 prohibits modifying an electric bicycle’s speed capability to an extent it no longer meets the definition of an electric bicycle. Also, it prohibits selling a product or device that can modify the speed capability of an electric bicycle to an extent it no longer meets the definition of an electric bicycle.
Assembly Bill 1778 authorizes a local authority within the County of Marin, or the County of Marin in unincorporated areas, to enact an ordinance or resolution prohibiting a person under 16 years of age from operating a class 2 electric bicycle or requiring a person operating a class 2 electric bicycle to wear a helmet.
Assembly Bill 2234 establishes the San Diego Electric Bicycle Safety Program and authorizes a local authority within the County of San Diego, or the County of San Diego in unincorporated areas, to enact an ordinance or resolution prohibiting a person under 12 years of age from operating a class 1 or 2 electric bicycle.
Senate Bill 1297 establishes a five-year Speed Safety System Pilot Program in the City of Malibu. The bill defines a ‘speed safety system’ as a fixed or mobile radar or laser system, or any other electronic device that utilizes automated equipment, to detect a violation of speed laws and obtains a clear photograph of a speeding vehicle’s license plate. The bill establishes mandates regarding policy, enforcement, implementation, public notification, and a system evaluation report.
Assembly Bill 2678 permits vehicles with a Clean Air Vehicle decal to drive in High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes until January 1, 2027, if federal law permits.
Senate Bill 1313 prohibits using, possessing, or selling devices designed to interfere with driver monitoring systems in vehicles equipped with advanced driver assistance systems or autonomous technology. These systems monitor driver alertness and help ensure safety when automated features are used. Violating this law is classified as an infraction. Exceptions are provided for manufacturers testing new technology, vehicle repairs, and updates compliant with safety standards or modifications for disability accommodations. This law aims to enhance road safety by preventing tampering with critical monitoring systems.
Upon the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) adoption of necessary regulations, AB 1777 creates new authority for a law enforcement officer to issue a “notice of autonomous vehicle (AV) noncompliance” to an AV manufacturer for an alleged traffic violation committed by one of their vehicles. Beginning July 1, 2026, AB 1777 establishes additional requirements for how AVs that operate without a human operator in the vehicle interact with first responders, including a requirement for manufacturers to provide a two-way device in the vehicles to communicate with first responders.
Assembly Bill 1904 authorizes a transit agency to equip a transit bus with a “yield” right-of-way sign on the left rear of the bus. The sign may be a static decal or a flashing light-emitting diode (LED).
Senate Bill 905 creates the crime of Unlawful Entry of a Vehicle, which addresses unlawfully entering a vehicle with the intent to commit a theft or any felony. It also adds the crime of Automotive Property Theft for Resale, which addresses possessing stolen property obtained from a vehicle with the intent to sell or exchange the property for value. The property’s value must be over $950.00 and not for personal use. The value of property can be combined within two years of separate acts.
Senate Bill 982 makes the crime of organized retail theft permanent and strengthens measures to address retail crime. The bill eliminates the expiration date for specific provisions targeting organized retail theft, ensuring long-term tools for law enforcement to combat this issue.
Senate Bill 1242 amends Penal Code Section 452 regarding the unlawful setting of fires. It updates penalties and legal language to clarify offenses, including circumstances involving organized retail theft.
Senate Bill 1416 focuses on combating organized retail theft by increasing penalties for those involved in the resale of stolen goods, often referred to as “fencing.” The bill, until January 1, 2030, creates sentencing enhancements for individuals who sell, exchange, or return stolen property for value, particularly when the property exceeds specific thresholds. Punishment increases from one year to four years based on a property value scale ranging from $50,000 to over $3 million.
Assembly Bill 1779 addresses the issue of organized retail theft by streamlining the prosecution process. Specifically, it allows district attorneys to consolidate charges for theft offenses committed across multiple counties into a single trial, provided all affected county district attorneys agree.
Assembly Bill 1802 ensures that the crime of organized retail theft remains permanently defined in state law and extends the CHP’s Property Crimes Task Force indefinitely. This bill eliminates the “sunset” clause that would have otherwise allowed the statute and the task force to expire.
Assembly Bill 1972 expands the scope of the CHP’s Regional Property Crimes Task Force to include cargo theft as a property crime for consideration and requires the task force to provide logistical and law enforcement support for railroad police.
This bill emphasizes cargo theft as a specific priority and aims to strengthen resources for law enforcement agencies to combat these issues. As an urgency statute, AB 1972 went into effect immediately upon its passage in August 2024 to address these concerns promptly.
Assembly Bill 2943, also called the “California Retail Theft Reduction Act,” strengthens measures to combat organized retail theft by creating a specific crime for serial retail theft, allowing the aggregation of property value for thefts committed within 90 days to qualify as grand theft. It empowers law enforcement to make arrests using video evidence or sworn statements, shields businesses from lawsuits for reporting crimes and promotes rehabilitation through diversion programs for minor offenders. The bill aims to dismantle theft rings while balancing public safety and criminal justice reforms.
Assembly Bill 3209 creates a retail crime restraining order. A court may issue a restraining order when sentencing an individual for specific retail theft-related crimes, including vandalism of a retail store and assaulting a retail store employee. The restraining order prohibits the individual from entering or being on the grounds of the establishment and may include parking lots adjacent to and used by the establishment.
The mission of the CHP is to provide the highest level of Safety, Service, and Security.
CA State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and State Senator Lena Gonzalez want to keep U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents off California school campuses without a judicial warrant in their efforts to deport illegal immigrants.
Introduced by Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez
“to protect California schools from a drop-off in attendance or funding in response to federal threats of mass deportation.”
By Liz Sanders, Director of Communications, California Department of Education
SACRAMENTO—State Superintendent Tony Thurmond is sponsoring legislation introduced by Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-33) on Monday, December 16, aimed at keeping U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents off of school campuses to protect California schools from a drop-off in attendance or funding in response to federal threats of mass deportation.
The legislation to be introduced by Gonzalez will protect California schools from a potential decline in attendance or funding during potential increased immigration enforcement by protecting school zones, as well as school data and sensitive family information.
The bill would:
prohibit school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and their personnel from granting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers or other federal authorities access to campuses without a judicial warrant;
prohibit police cooperation with any immigration enforcement efforts within a one-mile radius of school to ensure a safe corridor for parents to bring their children to and from school; and
prohibit the sharing of any information about students, families, their households, or school employees with ICE officers.
“This bill seeks to push back against threats of deportation that create fear in immigrant families. These practices suppress school attendance and rob schools of needed revenue,” said Thurmond. “I am honored to partner with bill author Senator Lena Gonzalez, other legislators, and immigrant rights groups to support our families and keep ICE off our school campuses—period.”
“All California children deserve safe school environments that prioritize student learning, regardless of immigration status,” said Gonzalez (D-Long Beach). “As Chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, I’m proud to be partnering with Superintendent Tony Thurmond to author this important legislation, which will prevent disruptions to student learning, keep children in school, and prevent families from being torn apart.”
Research has shown that immigration enforcement in the area of schools has a chilling effect on school attendance for students from impacted communities, regardless of students’ citizenship or immigration status. It is reasonable to expect such adverse impacts on immigrant communities throughout California.
The legislation would also strengthen safeguards against unauthorized disclosure of education records and personal information to federal agents. Combined, these protections would ensure that families are able to safely send their children to school without fear of being separated from their children, and families would also be able to fill out necessary school forms that are essential to students’ well-being and educational services without fear of being separated from their children.
In California, 93 percent of children who have one or more undocumented parents are U.S. citizens. Additionally, all children in the United States, regardless of immigration status, have a right to a free and appropriate public education.
The proposed bill reflects California’s commitment to ensure that pandemic-era increases in chronic absenteeism do not recur and also reiterates California’s commitment to make sure that schools are welcoming environments where all families can safely bring their children to learn. It aligns with California’s broader efforts to promote equity, inclusion, and the protection of immigrant communities.
As schools continue to face challenges related to student safety and data privacy, this bill sends a strong message that California is committed to safeguarding our students and families.
Senators Alex Padilla and Lisa Murkowski (official photos) and map of tsunami warning areas from the National Weather Service on Thursday, Dec. 5, 2024.
Providential timing with Thursday’s 7.0, 4.7 mag and multiple more quakes along Nor Cal coast
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) announced that the Senate passed their bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) through Fiscal Year 2028. Senate passage of the bill comes after a series of major earthquakes struck Northern California this morning, triggering tsunami warnings and underscoring the urgent need for early warning systems and earthquake safety programs like NEHRP. The legislation now heads to the U.S. House of Representatives.
The bill would authorize a total of $175.4 million per year from FY 2024-2028 across the four federal agencies responsible for long-term earthquake risk reduction under NEHRP: the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS).
“As today’s devastating Northern California earthquakes remind us, it is never a matter of if, but when the next major earthquake will strike,” said Padilla. “The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program supports crucial tools like the ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System, advances scientific understanding of earthquakes, and strengthens earthquake resilience in communities nationwide. With the safety of our communities at stake, we must stay vigilant. After today’s unanimous Senate passage, I will push my House colleagues to pass this bill to reauthorize this critical program as soon as possible.”
He was referring to both a 7.0-magnitude earthquake, 45 miles off the coast of Eureka and another 4.7 magnitude quake near Ferndale as well as multiple others throughout the day. (See Latest Earthquakes on the U.S. Geological Survey website)
Source: USGS
“Alaska faces significant earthquake risks as the most seismically active state-our communities must be prepared,” said Murkowski. “The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act provides crucial funding to federal agencies for the research, development, and implementation of earthquake safety procedures. The earthquake today in Northern California is a sober reminder of how critical these readiness measures are.”
Specifically, the NEHRP Reauthorization Act of 2024 would authorize $10.6 million for FEMA, $5.9 million for NIST, $58 million for NSF, and $100.9 million for USGS per year from FY 2024-2028. This funding would support research, development, and implementation activities related to earthquake safety and risk reduction.
This NEHRP reauthorization includes:
Directing state and local entities to inventory high risk buildings and structures,
Expanding seismic events to include earthquake-caused tsunamis;
Providing more technical assistance to Tribal governments; and
Improving mitigation for earthquake-connected hazards.
California faces substantial earthquake risks. According to the California Department of Conservation, over 70 percent of Californians live within 30 miles of a fault that could cause high ground shaking within the next 50 years. The state averages two to three earthquakes per year at magnitude 5.5 or higher, risking moderate structural damage. Because of these major earthquake risks, California has become a leader in earthquake research.
The NEHRP Reauthorization Act of 2024 is endorsed by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), BuildStrong America, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), International Code Council (ICC), the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA), the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), Seismological Society of America, and the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC).
Senator Padilla has long been a leader in mitigating earthquake risks. As a California State Senator, Padilla authored Senate Bill 135, signed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2013, which required the state to establish the nation’s first statewide early warning system. In 2021, he led five of his U.S. Senate colleagues in requesting details from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on future plans and funding needs for the West Coast Early Earthquake Warning system.
A Republic Services garbage auditor inspects a garbage bin on Vista Court in Antioch and left behind a two-sided notice for the resident. Photos courtesy of a resident who chose to remain anonymous.
Began January 2024 following 2016 state law to “address climate change impacts” from Methane, other greenhouse gases
“There have not been any contamination charges or citations issued for residential service at this point. Beginning in 2025, we will be working in conjunction with the City Attorney and Code Enforcement regarding city action to achieve compliance…” – City Manager Bessie Scott
Learn what goes in which bin
By Allen D. Payton
An Antioch resident who contacted the Herald last week, but chose not to be identified, wrote, “thought everyone should know that the City of Antioch has hired Auditors from Republic Services (the City’s garbage collection company) to inspect, take pics, and tag recycle, garbage, yard bins that do not have the correct items. Yesterday morning I woke to a lady auditing my neighborhood and tagging with an informational “oops” tag of bins with wrong items. The lady said she will be back in 60 days to inspect bins again and at that time if items are not placed correctly a ticket with a fine will be given to the household.
I have pictures. I spoke to the Republic Services auditor she was very informative, very nice, and my can happened to be correct (from what she saw) but, almost all my neighbors got tagged and no one knew about this….
I don’t know if this is a kind of story you do, but I just thought our city should be aware…..
I’m not sure how the fines and hiring an auditor works, but I thought the city council should hire someone to clean the garbage laying around our as opposed to tagging & fining residents
Maybe there is more behind this, I’m not sure… but all my neighbors were upset…. A lot of us don’t really understand how to properly dispose of items ….
Like for example we use paper plates in my home, I’ve been placing them in brown recycling….. the auditor said this is wrong and I will be fined next month. Paper plates with food should be in the green container loose not in any plastic bag…..
So again the lady/ auditor was very informative but I just think many people including myself are not aware of proper disposal
Oh also 60 days, would be when our new Mayor starts which I am super happy he got elected (thank you Lord!! Welcome to our new Mayor Ron!!))
But he will probably start the new year with people questioning why they have fines…
Thank you.”
Source: Republic Services
City Manager Explains Program
Questions were sent to staff for both Republic Services and the City, including City Manager Bessie Scott, Department of Public Safety and Community Resources Director Tasha Johnson and Environmental Resources Coordinator Julie Haas-Wajdowicz, asking about the audit, for details and who on the City staff should residents contact with questions and concerns.
City Manager Scott responded with the following, “Please note that pursuant to California Senate Bill 1383 (SB1383), the City of Antioch is required to conduct these route reviews and contamination audits, as well as issue Notices of Violations and fines should contamination persist. Note that Republic began this audit process in January 2024 for residential service, thus we are slated to wrap up our first year of audits. Republic Services, in partnership with the City, has been educating residents around these regulations with “Oops!” tags, and if the issue persists, follow-up contact and reinspection is initiated. In addition to this education and outreach, a post on Nextdoor went out citywide when the program first began in January of this year. There have not been any contamination charges or citations issued for residential service at this point.
“Republic is also conducting this audit for commercial accounts, and contamination charges do occur when recycling or organics containers must service as garbage.
I will work with Julie and liaise with Republic to discuss what additional education and outreach is needed so that customers feel like they know how to sort garbage- as we do not want our neighbors to feel unable to do this as noted below.
According to that webpage, “California State Senate Bill (SB) 1383 was adopted in September 2016 and went into effect in 2022. It establishes 2 statewide targets to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants by reducing the amount of organic waste disposed of in landfills.
The 2 statewide targets are:
Reduce organic waste sent to landfills by 75% by 2025.
Rescue at least 20% of currently disposed surplus food to donate to Californians in need by 2025.
Successful implementation at the local level will take effort on all parts in the City of Antioch and the community. Please visit this page for program updates and information.
SB 1383 primarily aims to achieve a sharp reduction in the generation of Methane & other harmful greenhouse gases that result from the decomposition of organic materials disposed of in landfills. Organic materials are all materials that come from plants and some materials that come from animals including all food waste, disposable paper products and yard trimmings. The State of California is mandating these reductions to address climate change impacts such as extreme heat, drought, and forest fires.”
State Senator Steve Glazer voted for the bill while then-Assemblyman Jim Frazier voted against it, which was subsequently signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown.
Jurisdictions must begin enforcement of SB 1383 compliant programs on or before January 1, 2024.
Inspections and Monitoring
Jurisdictions must conduct inspections and monitor for compliance. Jurisdictions may identify a designee to fulfill these obligations.
Recordkeeping
Jurisdictions must maintain all documentation of inspections and enforcement in the Implementation Record
Penalties
14 CCR section 18997.2 requires jurisdictions to impose the following penalties:
$50 – $100 per violation for the first violation
$100 – $200 per violation if the entity is found in violation a second time for the same violation within one year of the first levied penalty
$250 – $500 per violation if the entity is found in violation for any additional violations of the same section within one year of the most recent penalty
In addition to penalties, jurisdictions may also take actions, such as revoking, suspending, or denying a:
Permit
Registration
License or
Other authorization consistent with local requirements.
As with all SB 1383 regulations, jurisdictions must meet the minimum requirements, but may also implement additional, more stringent requirements.
According to the Best Best & Krieger law firm, “Under the SB 1383 regulations, if a local jurisdiction fails to adopt enforceable mechanisms (ordinances, franchise agreements, etc.) to implement the SB 1383 regulations by Jan. 1, 2022, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) can impose administrative civil penalties against the jurisdiction. Penalties vary based on the severity of the violation. Violations that substantially deviate from the SB 1383 regulations are considered to be major and will result in penalties between $7,500 and $10,000 per violation per day.
Major violations may include violations that are knowing, willful or intentional, or chronic violations. Specific major violations by a jurisdiction include:
Failure to have any ordinance or similar enforceable mechanism for organic waste disposal reduction and edible food recovery
Failure to have a provision in a contract, agreement or other authorization that requires a hauler to comply with SB 1383 regulations
Failure to have an edible food recovery program
Failure to have the required SB 1383 implementation records
Implementation or enforcement of any ordinance, policy, procedure, condition or initiative prohibited by SB 1383 regulations
Failure to submit reports to CalRecycle regarding its implementation and compliance with SB 1383 regulations”
UPDATE 2: City Manager Scott later shared, “we are not punitive, and our enforcement mechanisms strive for (and encourage) voluntary compliance- not delving out fines.”
