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.

Tools to Address Reckless Driving and Sideshows:

Vehicles: Speed Contests (AB 1978, Sanchez)

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.

Vehicles: Impoundment (AB 2186, Wallis)

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.

Vehicles: Sideshows and Street Takeovers (AB 2807, Villapudua)

Assembly Bill 2807 defines a “sideshow” and a “street takeover” as the same type of event.

Vehicles: Removal and Impoundment (AB 3085, Gipson)

Assembly Bill 3085 provides authority to seize and impound a vehicle with a warrant when the vehicle was used in violation of a speed contest or exhibition of speed (including aiding or abetting). This bill also permits electronic service of the notices of impoundment and storage hearings. 

Emergency Alert Information Sharing:

Electronic Toll Collection Systems: Information Sharing: Law Enforcement (AB 2645, Lackey)

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.

Electric Bicycle Safety:

Electric Bicycles, Powered Mobility Devices and Storage (SB 1271, Min)

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.

Vehicles: Electric Bicycles (AB 1774, Gipson)

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.

Vehicles: Electric Bicycles (AB 1778, Connolly)

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.

Vehicles: Electric Bicycles (AB 2234, Boerner)

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.

Photo Enforced Speed Enforcement Pilot Program:

The City of Malibu’s Speed Safety System Pilot Program (SB 1297, Allen)

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.

Clean Air Vehicle Sticker Extension:

Vehicles: High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (AB 2678, Wallis)

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.

Autonomous Vehicles:

Vehicle Equipment: Driver Monitoring Defeat Devices (SB 1313, Ashby)

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.  

Autonomous Vehicles Interactions with First Responders and Traffic Violation Notices – AB 1777 (Ting)

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.  

Pedestrian Safety Around Buses:

Transit buses: Yield Right-of-Way Sign (AB 1904, Ward)

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).

License Plate Manipulation:

License Plates: Obstruction or Alteration (AB 2111, Wallis)

Assembly Bill 2111 prohibits any alteration of a license plate’s reflective coating to avoid detection from any entity, not just law enforcement.

Property Theft from a Vehicle:

Crimes: Theft from A Vehicle (SB 905, Wiener)

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. 

Combating Retail Theft:

Crimes: Organized Theft (SB 982, Wahab)

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.

Crimes: Fires (SB 1242, Min)

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.

Sentencing Enhancements: Sale, Exchange, Or Return of Stolen Property (SB 1416 Newman)

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.

Theft: Jurisdiction (AB 1779, Irwin)

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.

Crimes: Organized Theft (AB 1802, Jones-Sawyer)

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.

Regional Property Crimes Task Force (AB 1972, Alanis)

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.

Crimes: Shoplifting (AB 2943, Zbur)

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.

Crimes: Theft: Retail Theft Restraining Orders (AB 3209, Berman)

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.

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.

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)

“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.

To view the release online, click here.

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.”

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.

“Beginning in 2025, we will be working in conjunction with the City Attorney and Code Enforcement regarding city action to achieve compliance when Republic is unsuccessful.  For more on the City’s implementation of SB1383, please visit our website at: https://www.antiochca.gov/pscr/environmental-resources/sb1383-implementation-2/#overview. 

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:

1. Reduce organic waste sent to landfills by 75% by 2025.
2. 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.

UPDATE: According to California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), cities and counties must enforce the law and impose fines to ensure residents and businesses comply with the law or face penalties between $7,500 and $10,000 per day:

Jurisdiction Enforcement

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.”

Antioch among 15 cities eligible to participate in ADU Accelerator Program

By Steven Harmon, Policy Analyst/Communications, Office of State Senator Steve Glazer

SACRAMENTO – Senator Steve Glazer, D-Contra Costa, announced a newly created program to encourage the construction of hundreds of Accessory Dwelling Units in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties.

The ADU Accelerator Program, secured in the budget through Senator Glazer’s efforts, offers rebates of up to $15,000 for qualifying ADU plans and projects. This $2.5 million state-funded initiative is intended to facilitate the construction of 350 ADUs among the 15 cities and towns in the East Bay.

“It is no secret the State of California is facing a shortage of available and affordable housing, and no one knows this better than our local cities and towns,” Glazer said. “From my first days in the State Senate, I have been a staunch supporter of cities seeking new and unique ways to spur the production of housing while blending new developments within the fabric of their communities.”

“I’m hoping that cities in my district can show what can be achieved when cities work together with the state on an incentivized program aimed at producing more affordable housing,” Senator Glazer said.

The program, approved in the 2023 budget, will be administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

The 15 cities are: Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, Dublin, Lafayette, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pittsburg, San Ramon, Walnut Creek in Contra Costa County and Livermore and Pleasanton in Alameda County.

Qualifying cities must have a Certified Housing Element that meets the substantial compliance requirements of Housing and Community Development.

Below is an overview of the new program along with guidelines to apply and receive funds.

Senate District 7 – ADU Accelerator Program | GUIDELINES

Program Overview

Some cities are taking steps to encourage and facilitate the construction of ADUs through the development of permit-ready plans, including architectural design work. Other cities are waiving processing fees to bring down the cost of housing.

This new program will be piloted by Senator Glazer’s District 7, composed of 15 cities in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area. The program will be administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for the purpose of advancing or “accelerating” the production of 350 ADUs through a series of programs.

Program Funding

Section 19.564 of the Budget Act of 2023 provides $2,500,000 to be allocated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for implementation of the ADU Accelerator Program (“Program”) to grant funds to cities for the creation of pre-approved permit-ready accessory dwelling unit plans and an incentive program.

Program Eligibility

• Fifteen (15) cities located in Senate District 7, including: Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, Dublin, Lafayette, Livermore, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pittsburg, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek.
• Qualifying cities must have a Certified Housing Element that meets the substantial compliance requirements of Housing and Community Development.

Program Details

1.      Incentive Program. Available Funding: $1,725,000

A.    Low-Income Restricted ADUs

Provide individual rebates of up to $15,000 to property owners who obtain building permits to construct an ADU and receive a certificate of occupancy within 18 months of issuance. Rebates will be provided for units that are deed restricted to low-income households for a minimum of 20 years; based upon the following sliding scale:

• $15,000 for units < 50 square feet
• $10,000 for units between 501-750 square feet
• $5,000 for units between 751-1,000 square feet
• No rebates for units over 1,000 square feet.

B.     Non-restricted ADUs

Provide individual rebates of up to $7,500 to property owners who obtain building permits to construct an ADU and receive a certificate of occupancy within 18 months of issuance. Rebates will be provided for units that are deed restricted to low-income households for a minimum of 20 years. Funds are awarded based upon the following sliding scale:

• $7,500 for units < 50 square feet
• $5,000 for units between 501-750 square feet
• $2,500 for units between 751-1,000 square feet
• No rebates for units over 1,000 square feet.

Example:

• City of Dublin has a population of 72,917 (as of January 1, 2024)
• Per Capita: $1.87
• Eligible for Award of $136,352 ($1.87 per capita x 72,917 population)
• Divided by average of $5,000 per unit (unrestricted)

Potential ADUs Added: 27 ADUs

2.      Permit Ready Prototype ADU Plans. Available Funding: $750,000

Qualified cities receive funding toward preparing prototypical permit-ready ADU plans (“ADU Plans”), including design elevations and construction drawings. Permit-ready plans are intended to streamline the ADU development process and facilitate additional ADU development in the community. Cities may partner with other cities on applications in this category to leverage investment. The maximum grant per city will be $50,000.

Cities may not be reimbursed for permit-ready ADU plans that were prepared prior to the launch of this program. Program funds may be used to modify or update existing permit-ready ADU plans or to create additional permit-ready ADU plans. Cities may also seek compensation from other eligible cities they share plans with.

Application Process

To receive funds, qualified cities must complete and submit an electronic application to the Town of Danville, Fiscal Agent. All funds must be expended as prescribed below and no later than September 30, 2026, after which these funds would be considered unexpended “Excess Funds” subject to re-allocation. 

Incentive Program

An application must include (a) the anticipated number of units proposed to be produced through the program; and (b) amount requested based on the per capita amount identified in the Funding Eligibility section.

Funding will be distributed to cities upon receipt of the application. Any unused funding must be returned to the Town of Danville, Fiscal Agent, at the end of the 18-month period and may be reallocated to cities that meet their targets and have additional need.

Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans

An application must include (a) brief description of the plans to be developed including the number of floor plans and ADU sizes; and (b) requested funding amount. The maximum funding is $50,000 per agency. Cities may partner with other eligible cities on applications in this category to leverage funding investment.

Funding will be distributed to cities upon receipt of the application. Permit-ready plans must be completed and available to prospective permittees within 12 months of grant award and include a city resolution adopting the ADU Plans.

Excess Funds

Any funding that has not been expended pursuant to these program guidelines by September 30, 2026, must be returned to the Fiscal Agent, the Town of Danville. These Excess Funds will be reallocated to other eligible agencies pursuant to the Incentive Program Guidelines. Funds will be re-allocated on a first come, first served basis. In the event of multiple requests, consideration will be given to which city or cities will generate the largest number of affordable units.

Application Deadlines

Applications are accepted via electronic submittal only

Incentive Program: September 1, 2024 – March 31, 2025 (may be extended if additional funds are available to be rolled over from the Permit-Ready program).

Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans: September 1, 2024 – March 31, 2025.

Program Administration

As authorized through the California Budget Act of 2023 and the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the Town of Danville will act as the fiscal agent (“Fiscal Agent”) to receive funding applications and distribute Program funds. The Town of Danville will receive a 1% fee ($25,000) for administering the program.

General program questions can be directed to Planning Division c/o Jessica Lam, Town of Danville at jlam@danville.ca.gov or (925) 314-3337.

Applications and application-related correspondence can be directed to SD7.ADUProgram@danville.ca.gov.

Biannual Reporting

Eligible recipients will be required to submit Biannual Progress Reports which summarize the number of ADUs that have been permitted and finaled for the reporting period as well as cumulatively for the life of the program through September 30, 2027.

Biannual Progress Reports will be filed with the Fiscal Agent at SD7.ADUProgram@danville.ca.gov.

*Applications are accepted via electronic submittal only

Cites “finite funding”; would have qualified some for up to $150,000 or 20% down payment; signs 5 other bills

By Allen D. Payton

In a message to the California State Assembly on Thursday, Sept. 6, Governor Gavin Newsom explained his veto of AB1840, Home Purchase Assistance Program: eligibility by Assemblymember Dr. Joaquin Arambula (D-Fresno) that it’s due to limited funds. He wrote:

“To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1840 without my signature.

This bill seeks to prohibit the disqualification of applicants from one of California Housing Finance Agency’s (CalHFA) home purchase assistance programs based solely on their immigration status.

Given the finite funding available for CalHFA programs, expanding program eligibility must be carefully considered within the broader context of the annual state budget to ensure we manage our resources effectively.

For this reason, I am unable to sign this bill.”

The bill would have allowed some illegal immigrants in California to qualify for the California Dream for All Shared Appreciation Loan program, which would have been renamed under the bill to the Home Purchase Assistance Program, and receive up to $150,000 for a 20% downpayment to purchase their first home.

Newsom also announced on Thursday the bills he signed into law:

AB 1170 by Assemblymember Avelino Valencia (D-Anaheim) – Political Reform Act of 1974: filing requirements.

AB 1770 by the Committee on Emergency Management – Emergency services: Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission: seismic mitigation and earthquake early warning technology.

AB 2094 by Assemblymember Heath Flora (R-Modesto) – Alcoholic beverage control: public community college stadiums: City of Bakersfield.

AB 2436 by Assemblymember Juan Alanis (R-Modesto) – Cattle: inspections: fees.

AB 2721 by the Committee on Agriculture – Food and agriculture: omnibus bill.

For full text of the bills, visit: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.

Glazer votes to table the amendment without debate, Skinner votes to abstain

By Allen D. Payton

An effort by the Republicans in the California State Senate to end the state income tax on tips was blocked by Democrats during final session voting, last Thursday, August 29, 2024. That’s in spite of the fact that their party’s nominee for president, Vice President Kamala Harris, announced her support for the proposal just last month, following former President Trump’s previous announcement proposing the idea during the campaign.

All nine Republican state senators supported the amendment, while almost all the state’s Democratic senators, including State Sen. Steve Glazer, except for Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire and State Sen. Nancy Skinner, voted in opposition. McGuire and Skinner, who represents portions of Western Contra Costa County, voted to abstain. Glazer currently represents the rest and most of Contra Costa County, including Antioch. The motion to table the amendment without debate passed 29-9-2.

A press release about the effort issued that day reads, “Today, California Senate Republicans advanced amendments to protect hospitality and service industry employees with a state tax exemption on tips. Legislative Democrats refused to consider the issue and summarily killed the proposal without discussion or debate. Click HERE to watch Senator Ochoa Bogh’s floor remarks and click HERE to view/download the roll call vote on the amendments.”

“The proposal, which was aimed at addressing the unsustainable tax burden placed on workers who rely heavily on tips, would have exempted those tips from state income taxes and allowed hospitality and service industry employees to take home more of their earnings,” the press release continued. “Proponents of the policy point to not only relief for taxpayers as a benefit but also increased spending that would result from those tax breaks and serve as an economic driver to lift all sectors of the economy.”

“The negligence involved in a refusal to even debate a policy issue of this magnitude cannot be overstated,” said state Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones. “The push to eliminate the federal tip tax has made its way to the campaign stage for both major party’s this year, yet California Democrat politicians don’t believe it be even worthy to discuss at the state level for residents here.”