Protect Kids California’s effort would require schools to tell parents if their child signals gender changes, prevent biological males in girls’ sports and ban sterilization of children

Claim Attorney General’s ballot title and language change hurt signature gathering effort, lawsuit filed

“Our message is simple. Schools shouldn’t keep secrets from parents” – Protect Kids CA

By Allen D. Payton

California activists seeking to empower parents over their children’s decisions to identify as transgender failed to place a trifecta of restrictions on the November ballot known by the organizers as the Protect Kids of California Act of 2024. Attorney General Rob Bonta changed the ballot title to Restricts Rights of Transgender Youth. Initiative Statute and he changed the ballot language, as well which hampered the signature gathering efforts organizers claim.

According to Students First: Protect Kids California, the initiative will: (1) repeal the California law that permits students to compete in female’s sports and students to be in females’ locker rooms and bathrooms; (2) prohibit schools from deceiving parents about their student’s gender identity crisis and stop them from secretly transitioning a child; and (3) stop sex change operations and chemical castrations on minors.

The organization started late last fall to consolidate their three separate initiatives into one, and its signature-gathering efforts supported by 400,000 voters fell short of the 546,651 verifiable signatures that had to be collected within six months to make the presidential election ballot. The goal was to collect 800,000 signatures to be safe.

Organizers posted their complaint about Bonta’s ballot language changes on the group’s Facebook page on April 2. Initiative committee Executive Team member Nicole C Pearson wrote, “Every Californian, regardless of whether they agree with the initiative, should be concerned about an attorney general who ignores the law and uses his power to sabotage ballot initiatives. We plan to hold Bonta accountable for allowing his political agenda to get in the way of doing his job.”

The post included a link to an opinion on the Orange County Register website  decrying the changes which reads, “As required by California law, proponents submitted the measure to Bonta to receive a neutral official title and summary to use in petitions. Bonta then returned the measure with a new title with a negative and misleading slant: the “Restricts Rights of Transgender Youth Initiative.” And he gave it a summary that was not only completely prejudicial and designed to mislead the electorate — it also contained lies.”

Then on Tuesday, May 28 the group issued a press release announcing the setback in a post on their Facebook page which reads, “We want to thank our tens of thousands of supporters and volunteers for this truly historic effort!Together, we collected over 400,000 signatures – an unprecedented achievement for a 100% grassroots effort. You really are amazing! While it is unfortunate we did not have enough signatures to make the 2024 ballot, we will build off this momentum to continue to fight for the principles set forth in the Protect Kids of California Act.”

The press release reads, “Protect Kids California announced on Tuesday, May 28, 2024, they collected an impressive 400,000 signatures for their proposed ballot measure but fell short of the 546,651 required to be collected within a 180-day timeframe to appear on the ballot.

Tens of thousands of volunteers gathered signatures from every county in California. The largest collection areas were Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Clara and Alameda Counties.

A completely grassroots effort, Protect Kids California raised close to $200,000 from over 1,200 donors. This equates to less than 50 cents per signature, a fraction of the amount standard ballot measure committees spend.

“While we are disappointed we didn’t meet the threshold to qualify for the ballot, we are encouraged by the amount of support from every sector of the state. We gathered more signatures for a statewide initiative than any all-volunteer effort in the history of California.” “We had severe headwinds from the beginning. California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a false and misleading Title & Summary for our initiative. That made our fundraising efforts more difficult. While we sued the Attorney General, a Superior Court Judge denied our motion in April. We plan to appeal the Superior Court Judge’s decision, at which time we will decide how to proceed in the future. If we had a little more time or a little more money, we would have easily qualified for the ballot.”

But battles over transgender issues will continue to burn bright in courts, school districts and the Legislature. Despite a setback, initiative organizers were buoyed by the 400,000 signatures that thousands of volunteers collected. They are confident that they will attract more donations and enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot two years from now — and find more support than leaders in heavily Democratic California assume exists.  

“We’re very confident that voters would pass this if it gets to the ballot box,” said Jonathan Zachreson, a Roseville City school board member, co-founder of Protect Kids California and an official proponent of the initiative. “We gathered more signatures for a statewide initiative than any all-volunteer effort in the history of California.”

“We started around the holidays which didn’t help,” he added. “It was an all-volunteer effort. It usually takes about $7 million to get something on the ballot. We raised just under $200,000 which covered our costs. But we didn’t have money to pay signature-gatherers. We had around 25,000 to 30,000 volunteers. Our efforts really took off in the past two months. In the past few weeks, we were collecting so many signatures it was hard to keep up.”

The organizers proposed language for the three-pronged initiative read:

• REQUIRES schools to notify parents regarding children’s mental health concerns identified in school settings, including gender identification issues.
• PROTECTS girls’ competitive sports and school spaces to be for biological girls only.
• PREVENTS the sterilization of children by prohibiting the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, mastectomies and genital surgeries for minors

But Bonta’s ballot language for the initiative was changed to read instead:

• Requires public and private schools and colleges to: restrict gender-segregated facilities like bathrooms to persons assigned that gender at birth; prohibit transgender female students (grades 7+) from participating in female sports. Repeals law allowing students to participate in activities and use facilities consistent with their gender identity.
• Requires schools to notify parents whenever a student under 18 asks to be treated as a gender differing from school records without exception for student safety.
• Prohibits gender-affirming health care for transgender patients under 18, even if parents consent or treatment is medically recommended.

The second issue has sparked a firestorm within the past year.

Last week, a Democratic legislator introduced a late-session bill that would preempt mandatory parental notification. Assembly Bill 1915, by Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego, would prohibit school districts from adopting a mandatory parental notification policy and bar them from punishing teachers who defy outing policies of LGBTQ+ students.

Last year, Assemblymember Bill Essayli, R-Corona, introduced a bill that would require parental notification, but AB 1314 died in the Assembly Education Committee without getting a hearing. Committee Chair Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, reasoned the bill would “potentially provide a forum for increasingly hateful rhetoric targeting LGBTQ youth.”

Ward cited surveys of transgender and gender nonconforming youths that found most felt unsafe or unsupported at home. In one national survey, 10% reported someone at home had been violent toward them because they were transgender, and 15% had run away or were kicked out of home because they were transgender.

The California Department of Education has issued guidance that warns that parental notification policies would violate students’ privacy rights and cites a California School Boards Association model policy that urges districts to protect students’ gender preferences.

But Zachreson argues that even if children have a right to gender privacy that excludes their parents, which he denies exists, students waive it through their actions.  “At school, their teachers know about it, their peers and volunteers know about it, other kids’ parents know about it —  and yet the child’s own parent doesn’t know that the school is actively participating in the social transition,” he said.

In some instances, he said, schools are actively taking steps to keep name changes and other forms of gender expression secret from the parents.

“What we’re saying is, no, you can’t do that. You have to involve the parents in those decisions,” he said.

Ward responds that many teachers don’t want to be coerced to interfere with students’ privacy and gender preferences. “Teachers have a job to do,” he said. “They are not the gender police.”

A half-dozen school districts with conservative boards, including Rocklin, Temecula Valley and Chino Valley, have adopted mandatory parental notification policies. Last fall, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Chino Valley, arguing its policy is discriminatory. A state Superior Court judge in San Bernardino agreed that it violated the federal equal protection clause and granted a preliminary injunction. The case is on appeal.

Last July, U.S. District Court judge for Eastern California threw out a parent’s lawsuit against Chico Unified for its policy prohibiting disclosure of a student’s transgender status to their parent without the student’s explicit consent. The court ruled that it was appropriate for the district to allow students to disclose their gender identity to their parents “on their own terms.” Bonta and attorney generals from 15 states filed briefs supporting Chico Unified; the case, too, is on appeal.

While some teachers vow to sue if required to out transgender students to their parents, a federal judge in Southern California sided with two teachers who sued Escondido Union School District for violating their religious beliefs by requiring them to withhold information to parents about the gender transition of children. The judge issued a preliminary injunction against the district and then ordered the return of the suspended teachers to the classroom.

No California appellate court has issued a ruling on parent notification, and it will probably take the U.S. Supreme Court for a definitive decision. Essayli pledged to take a case there.

The National Picture

Seven states, all in the deeply red Midwest and South, have laws requiring identification of transgender students to their parents, while five, including Florida and Arizona, don’t require it but encourage districts to adopt ther own version., according to the Movement Advancement Project or MAP, an independent nonprofit.

Two dozen states, including Florida, Texas, and many Southern and Midwest states ban best-practice health care, medication and surgical care for transgender youth, and six states, including Florida, make it a felony to provide surgical care for transgender care. Proponents cite the decision in March by the English public health system to prohibit youths under 16 from beginning a medical gender transition to bolster the case for tighter restrictions in the United States.  

California has taken the opposite position; it is one of 15 like-minded states and the District of Columbia with shield laws to protect access to transgender health care. They include New York, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Massachusetts.

Twenty-five states have laws or regulations banning the participation of 13- to 17-year-old transgender youth in participating in sports consistent with their gender identification.

Not one solidly blue state is among those that have adopted the restrictions that Protect Kids California is calling for. But Zachreson and co-founder Erin Friday insist that contrary to the strong opposition in the Legislature, California voters would be open to their proposals. They point to favorable results in a survey of 1,000 California likely voters by the Republican-leaning, conservative pollster Spry Strategies last November.

• 59% said they would support and 29% would oppose legislation that “restricts people who are biologically male, but who now identify as women, from playing on girl’s sports teams and from sharing facilities that have traditionally been reserved for women.”
• 72% said they agreed, and 21% disagreed that “parents should be notified if their child identifies as transgender in school.”
• 21% said they agreed, and 64% disagreed that “children who say they identify as transgender should be allowed to undergo surgeries to try to change them to the opposite sex or take off-label medications and hormones.”

The voters surveyed were geographically representative and reflective of party affiliation, but not demographically, The respondents were mostly white and over 60, and, in a progressive state, were divided roughly evenly among conservatives, moderates and liberals.

Two Versions of Protecting Children

Both sides in this divisive cultural issue say they’re motivated to protect children. One side says it’s protecting transgender children to live as they are, without bias and prejudice that contribute to despair and suicidal thoughts. The other side says it’s protecting kids from coercion to explore who they aren’t, from gender confusion, and exposure to values at odds with their family’s.

Zachreson and Friday wanted to title their initiative “Protect Kids of California Act of 2024.” But Bonta, whose office reviews initiatives’ titles and summaries, chose instead “Restrict Rights of Transgender Youth. Initiative Statute.” Zachreson and Friday, an attorney, appealed the decision, but a Superior Court Judge in Sacramento upheld Bonta’s wording, which he said was accurate, not misleading or prejudicial.

“The ballot title was obviously biased and the summary was intentionally meant to deceive voters and hampered our efforts to get this on the ballot this year,” Zachreson continued. “The statutory requirement is to be impartial and factual. He did the opposite. He was biased and he had descriptions that were false. Bonta claimed there were no exceptions for student safety when notifying parents. But that’s not correct. It’s already in the law.”

Zachreson is appealing again. A more objective title and summary would make a huge difference, he said, by attracting financial backing to hire signature collectors and the support and resources of the California Republican Party, which declined to endorse the initiative. That was a strategic mistake in an election year when turnout will be critical.

“The people who support the initiative are passionate about it,” he said.

The organizers may have to start over but a lawsuit about the biased title and summary was filed asking for a change in the language, to use the signatures already gathered and to grant an extension.

“The appeal won’t be heard until after the November election,” Zachreson shared.

Effort for November 2026 Ballot Continues

If a judge rules in their favor it will make it easier for the group to complete the signature gathering to qualify for the next General Election ballot which will be in November 2026.

Political observer Dan Schnur, who teaches political communications at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine University, agreed that the gender debate could have motivated Republicans and swing voters to go to the polls. 

“There’s no question that the Attorney General’s ballot language had a devastating effect on the initiative’s supporters and it could have almost as much of an impact on Republican congressional candidates this fall,” he said.

“Our message is simple. Schools shouldn’t keep secrets from parents; we should protect girls’ sports and private spaces at school; and we should protect kids from unproven, life-altering and often sterilizing medical procedures. We vow to continue fighting for these principles,” the group’s May 28th press release concluded.

To learn more about Protect Kids California, visit http://www.protectkidsca.com.

John Fensterwald who writes about education policy and its impact in California for EdSource.org contributed to this report.

Senator Glazer’s request leads to findings of workers cheated out of $63.9 million in past wages

Calls it a failure to act on behalf of workers

Report claims inadequate staffing, poor oversight have weakened protections for workers

SACRAMENTO – California Labor Commissioners have stood idly by as a massive backlog in wage theft cases piled up worth $63.9 million in lost wages to workers as its enforcement unit failed to enforce and collect wages in 76 percent of cases in which employers were found to owe wages, according to a report released Wednesday by Grant Parks, the California State Auditor.

The scathing audit came as a result of a March 2023 request through the Joint Legislative Audit Committee by Senator Steve Glazer, D-Contra Costa, and Assemblyman David Alvarez, D-San Diego. It was based on news reports about the lack of wage theft enforcement.

Parks reported his findings to the Governor, President pro Tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the Assembly about the “Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, also known as the Labor Commissioner’s Office (LCO).” Lilia García-Brower is the current state Labor Commissioner and was appointed to the position by Governor Newsom in July 2019. Neither her name or photo appears on the website for the Labor Commissioner’s Office. Ironically, according to the agency’s website, “The mission of the LCO is to ensure a just day’s pay in every workplace in the State and to promote economic justice through robust enforcement of labor laws. By combating wage theft, protecting workers from retaliation, and educating the public, we put earned wages into workers’ pockets and help level the playing field for law-abiding employers.”

The audit “reviewed the backlog of wage claims submitted by workers from fiscal years 2017–18 through 2022–23, and determined that the LCO is not providing timely adjudication of wage claims for workers primarily because of insufficient staffing to process those claims.”

Furthermore, the state Auditor reported, “In addition to its delays in processing wage claims, the LCO has not been successful in collecting judgments from employers. A possible factor contributing to its low collection rate is that the Enforcement Unit does not consistently use all of the methods available to it for collecting payments owed to workers.”

Senator Glazer released this statement on the audit’s findings:

“The California State Auditor’s report makes clear that our State Labor Commissioner is a toothless enforcer of our wage theft laws. This deeply troubling assessment exposes a system that has fundamentally failed the workers it is supposed to protect. According to the auditor, there is a backlog of 47,000 claims registered on June 30, 2023. This is a state embarrassment and a stain on the department that workers depend on for justice.

The report also highlights an alarming increase in the average number of days to resolve claims, which has skyrocketed from 420 days in 2017/18 to an astounding 890 days in 2022/23. This drastic decline in efficiency is not just a statistic; it represents thousands of workers enduring prolonged injustice and financial hardship.

This lack of enforcement emboldens companies to exploit workers, knowing they can likely escape any real consequences, thus perpetuating and increasing further abuse. These findings paint a grim picture of an agency overwhelmed and ineffective, leaving workers vulnerable and without recourse. Immediate and decisive action to restore integrity and effectiveness to the Labor Commissioner’s office is needed. The workers of California deserve nothing less than a robust system that ensures timely and fair resolution of wage theft claims.”

The report can be found here: www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/the-california-labor-commissioners-office/

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

MARTINEZ, CA—District 15State Assembly candidate Anamarie Avila Farias today announced the endorsement of California Governor Gavin Newsom for her campaign to represent portions of Contra Costa County in the State Legislature. 

“Anamarie’s experience and dedication to her community, to progress on the challenges facing our state, and her commitment to charting a fundamentally strong future for all Californians make her the best candidate for State Assembly,” said Governor Newsom. “I’m proud of the work she’s done as an appointee of mine on the California Housing Finance Agency and look forward to working with her when she’s elected to the Assembly in November.”

“Under Governor Newsom’s leadership, California has been in great hands,” said Anamarie. “I’m proud to have served in his administration at the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development of the City and County of San Francisco and as a Gubernatorial Appointee on the California Housing Finance Agency Board while he’s been governor.

“In the Assembly, I’ll seek to partner with him on bold policies to tackle housing, education, homelessness, and climate challenges,” she added.

Avila Farias placed second in the March Primary election behind her Republican opponent Sonia Ledo, but the top vote-getter in a field of three Democrats. Democratic voters outnumber Republicans 52%-19% in District 15’s registration numbers.

She currently serves as Area 3 Trustee on the Contra Costa County Board of Education where her focus is on quality education in Contra Costa public schools. The candidate touts her extensive record serving her community, including as a Martinez Councilwoman and in setting state policy.

Avila Farias is running to represent California State Assembly District 15. The district encompasses Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Concord, Clayton, Pittsburg, Bay Point, Antioch, Crockett most of Brentwood and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. 

For more information about her campaign visit www.anamarie4assembly.com.

Unveiling the top 10 U.S. states with highest cybercrime losses last year

By CyberNut

Cybercrime surged to unprecedented levels in 2023, resulting in over $12.5 billion in losses across the United States. Discover which states suffered the most significant financial impacts and delve into the factors driving these staggering losses in our comprehensive analysis.

• California ranks #1 among states that experienced cybercrime loss
• California lost around $2.16 billion in 2023. due to cybercrimes
• California alone accounted for approximately 17.3% of the total cybercrime losses in the U.S. in 2023

Cybercrime has become a growing threat to businesses, schools, and individuals all over the United States, with more than $12.5 billion in potential losses incurred in the last year alone. But some states are bearing the brunt of the financial losses – is your state one of them? 

“This can be attributed to the state’s large population (the largest in the U.S.), thriving tech industry, and high concentration of affluent individuals and businesses, making it an attractive target for cybercriminals,” notes Oliver Page, CEO of CyberNut.

Page delves into the top ten U.S. states that experienced the highest cybercrime losses in 2023, exploring the potential reasons behind these staggering figures. 

Rank	State	Loss (in USD)
1	California	2,159,454,513
2	Texas	1,021,547,286
3	Florida	874,725,493
4	New York	749,955,480
5	New Jersey	441,151,263
6	Pennsylvania	360,334,651
7	Illinois	335,764,223
8	Arizona	324,352,644
9	Georgia	301,001,997
10	Washington	288,691,091

10. Washington

Washington’s thriving tech industry makes it a prime target for cybercriminals. Oliver Page says, ‘With major tech companies like Microsoft and Amazon headquartered here, the state holds vast amounts of valuable data.’ Attacks on these giants and smaller businesses contributed to the state’s losses in 2023, which amounted to over $288 million.

9. Georgia 

Atlanta’s status as a significant financial hub plays a role in Georgia’s cybercrime losses, which reached over $300 million last year. Oliver Page notes, ‘The state houses numerous banks and financial institutions, attracting cybercriminals seeking to exploit vulnerabilities in the financial sector.’

8. Arizona

Arizona’s growing population and businesses make it susceptible to cyber threats. Small to medium-sized companies, often with fewer cybersecurity resources, become easy targets. The state’s focus on healthcare and education makes it a prime target for ransomware attacks.

Arizona lost over $320 million to cybercrimes last year.

7. Illinois 

Illinois, particularly Chicago, is a center for business and commerce. The state’s diverse economy, including finance, healthcare, and manufacturing, offers cybercriminals a variety of lucrative targets. Cybercrimes in Illinois in 2023 reached over $335 million.

6. Pennsylvania 

‘Pennsylvania’s large number of healthcare providers and insurance companies make it a prime target for data breaches,’ said Oliver Page. Cybercriminals exploit vulnerabilities in these sectors to steal sensitive information, leading to significant financial losses. In 2023, these losses amounted to some $360 million.

5. New Jersey

New Jersey, in fifth place, experienced over $441 million in cybercrime losses, potentially due to its proximity to New York and its own thriving financial and pharmaceutical sectors. 

4. New York

Oliver Page says, ‘New York, the fourth-highest state, suffered nearly $750 million in losses, reflecting its status as a global financial hub and the presence of numerous high-profile companies and organizations, all of whom are a prime target for cybercriminals.’ 

3. Florida 

Florida ranks third, with nearly $875 million suffered in cybercrime losses. ‘The state’s reliance on tourism, real estate, and financial services, as well as its large elderly population, make it vulnerable to scams and data breaches,’ Oliver Page says. 

2. Texas 

The state of Texas comes in second with over $1.02 billion in losses, likely due to its large population, diverse economy, and significant presence in industries like energy, finance, and healthcare, all of which are prime targets for cyberattacks. 

1. California 

California tops the list as the state with the highest cybercrime losses in 2023, reaching a staggering amount of nearly $2.16 billion. 

Oliver Page notes, ‘This can be attributed to the state’s large population (the largest in the U.S.), thriving tech industry, and high concentration of affluent individuals and businesses, making it an attractive target for cybercriminals.’ 

Cybercrime’s Devastating Impact

These staggering cybercrime losses have a significant impact on the overall economy and financial system. Oliver Page says, ‘The theft of sensitive data, financial fraud, and disruption of critical infrastructure can lead to decreased consumer confidence, higher insurance premiums, and increased costs in every area for businesses and individuals.’

To mitigate these risks, businesses, organizations, and individuals in these high-risk states should implement robust cybersecurity measures, such as:

• Regularly updating software and systems to address known vulnerabilities.
• Implementing strong access controls, including multi-factor authentication and password management.
• Providing comprehensive cybersecurity training for employees to recognize and respond to phishing attempts and other social engineering tactics.
• Regularly backing up data and testing incident response plans to ensure business continuity in the event of a breach.
• Cyber insurance should be considered to transfer some of the financial risk associated with cyber threats. 

About CyberNut

CyberNut is a security awareness training solution built exclusively for schools. CyberNut’s automated campaigns train your school’s faculty, staff, & students to recognize and report the phishing emails and deep fake Al scams that are targeting your school district, making CyberNut the easiest and the most painless security awareness training solution to implement and manage for school IT departments.

Methodology

The data on U.S. states with the highest cybercrime losses is taken from the FBI’s Internet Crime Report 2023, Page 25 (https://www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/AnnualReport/2023_IC3Report.pdf).  After collecting the data, we ranked it based on the highest losses to the respective state. The total amount of money lost ($12.5 billion) was taken from the same report.

Named to 2024 Cal Hospital Compare Patient Safety Honor Roll for having a strong culture of safety

By Antonia Ehlers, PR and Media Relations, Kaiser Permanente Northern California 

With a commitment to providing high-quality, safe patient care, Kaiser Permanente Antioch Medical Center has been named to the Cal Hospital Compare 2024 Patient Safety Honor Roll.

The honor roll uses objective, publicly available patient safety measures to evaluate hospitals across a variety of domains, including hospital-acquired infections, adverse patient safety events, sepsis management, patient experience, and the Leapfrog Group’s Hospital Safety Grade.

This year, 72 of the state’s 306 adult, acute-care hospitals made the honor roll. Kaiser Permanente Northern California had 10 hospitals on the list – representing 14% of the hospitals recognized.

“The safety of our patients is our top priority,” said Pam Galley, senior vice president and area of Kaiser Permanente’s Diablo service area. “Our health care providers work hard to create a safe, exceptional patient-care experience.”

Kaiser Permanente Northern California hospitals are consistently recognized as among the country’s best for outstanding patient safety, positive care outcomes, and exceptional patient-care experiences.

“We are committed to providing excellent personalized care while keeping our patients safe from harm,” said Kaiser Permanente Antioch Medical Center Physician in Chief Sharon Mowat, MD. “We are very grateful for our extraordinary physicians, nurses and staff members who make a difference every day.”

Hospitals on the honor roll had to meet a rigorous threshold of performance by having at least two-thirds of measure results above the 50th percentile and no measure result below the 10th percentile and/or an “A” grade in the Leapfrog Hospital Safety Grade for the past three reporting periods.

This honor roll offers Californians a rigorously evaluated list of hospitals that have consistently demonstrated a strong culture of safety across multiple departments, according to Cal Hospital Compare.

Nearly $2 billion in statewide investments to improve, protect state’s infrastructure

By Edward Barrera, Division Chief of Public Affairs, California Department of Transportation 

SACRAMENTO — Earlier this month, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) allocated $1.9 billion to support transportation infrastructure projects that play a starring role in powering the world’s fifth largest economy. The approved funding provides significant investments for bridges, roadways, transit and improved facilities for people who walk and bike.

The latest allocations also include nearly $430 million from the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA) and $740 million via Senate Bill (SB) 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. 

A total of $10.183 million was allocated for improvements in Contra Costa County with most of it for 20 miles of BART track and $3.6 million for I-680 in San Ramon and Danville. 

Among the efforts spurred by the $1.9 billion commitment include several projects prioritizing the state’s vital bridge network, highlighted more than $4 million to repair bridge damage along Interstate 80 in Alameda County.

Also included are projects that will build or renovate shoreline embankments, bus, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and railroad overcrossings. 

“California’s transportation infrastructure is critical to the economic and cultural lifeblood of our state, and this funding provides key support in our mission to provide a safe, equitable and sustainable transportation system for all users,” said Tony Tavares, Caltrans Director.

Contra Costa County Projects

• $6 million allocation for BART Expansion and Contraction of Steel Rail in Contra Costa County which will destress twenty miles of rail track within the BART operating corridor that has been identified as being affected by such conditions in Contra Costa County. (Funding description and source: Locally-Administered Local Transportation Climate Adaptation Program Project off the State Highway System – Resolution LTCAP-A-2324-04)
• $3.6 million allocation for I-680 in San Ramon and Danville, from Alcosta Boulevard to north of Diablo Road. Rehabilitate pavement, upgrade guardrail, and upgrade facilities to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.
• $500,000 allocation for the Pavement Resurfacing Project, which will focus on applying pavement rehabilitation treatments in various streets located in the southeast area of the City of Martinez to improve the City’s overall pavement condition index and reduce on-going maintenance. Project will also include ADA curb ramp improvements, restoration of vehicle detection sensors at signalized intersections, striping restoration, and green infrastructure improvements. (Funding description and source: Locally-Administered SB 1 Local Partnership Program (LPP) (Formulaic) Projects Off the State Highway System – Resolution LPP-A-2324-38)
• $83,000 allocation for the Morello Avenue sidewalk gap closure in Martinez will address gaps of concrete sidewalk on the east side of Morello Avenue, south of Village Oaks Drive; and the east side of Morello Avenue, north of Arnold Drive. Improvements will also new curb and gutter, and a new ADA curb ramp at the southeast corner of Morello Avenue/Village Oaks Drive. (Funding description and source: Locally-Administered SB 1 LPP (Formulaic) Projects Off the State Highway System – Resolution LPP-A-2324-38)

The Contra Costa projects funded are among multiple approved projects in District 4 – Bay Area / Oakland which includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma counties.

IIJA, known as the “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,” is a once-in-a-generation investment in our nation’s infrastructure to improve the sustainability and resiliency of our energy, water, broadband and transportation systems. Since 2021, California has received more than $42 billion in IIJA funds, including more than $29 billion for transportation-related projects.

In addition, SB 1 provides $5 billion in transportation funding each year that is shared between state and local agencies. Road projects progress through construction phases more quickly based on the availability of SB 1 funds, including those partially funded by SB 1. 

See the complete list of the latest CTC-approved projects in each of the other nine Caltrans Districts in the state:

District 1 – Eureka (Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake and Mendocino counties)

District 2 – Redding (Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama and Trinity counties)

District 3 – Marysville / Sacramento (Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties)

District 5 – San Luis Obispo / Santa Barbara (Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz counties)

District 6 – Fresno / Bakersfield (Kings, Tulare, Fresno, Madera and Kern counties)

District 7 – Los Angeles (Los Angeles and Ventura counties)

District 8 – Riverside and San Bernardino counties

District 9 – Bishop (Inyo, Kern and Mono counties)

District 10 – Stockton (Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tuolumne counties)

District 11 – San Diego (San Diego and Imperial counties)

District 12 – Orange County

For more information about California transportation projects funded by IIJA and SB-1, visit RebuildingCA.ca.gov and www.build.ca.gov.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Due to purchase and use of hybrid and electric vehicles

Receive up to $400 in gift cards for 6-month Pilot program beginning Aug. 2024

By Allen D. Payton

Caltrans has launched a test on the proposed per mile Road Charge to possibly replace the state’s current gas tax and invites the state’s drivers to participate. The Pilot program will last six months and participants can earn up to $400 in gift cards.

With the passage of Senate Bill 1077 introduced in 2014 by then-State Senator (now-Congressman) Mark DeSaulnier, California began investigating a long-term, sustainable transportation funding mechanism as a potential replacement to the gas tax, known as a “road charge” due to the advent of hybrid and electric vehicles. As of 2022, state officials estimate that there were about 1.1 million electric cars and 1.3 million hybrids on California roads.

Taking direction from the Legislature, California completed the largest road charge research effort to date piloting more than 5,000 vehicles that reported in excess of 37 million miles over a nine-month duration. According to the program’s report, the statistics only serve to reinforce Californians’ desire for mobility, a safe and reliable transportation system, and an improved overall quality of life. Below please find the California State Transportation Agency’s release of the California Road Charge Pilot Program final report.

History of Transportation Funding

According to the Road Charge Pilot Program Summary Report, Nearly all of the 350 billion miles driven each year on California’s highways and roads are  powered by gasoline or diesel fueled vehicles. Historically, the taxes on those fuels provided the majority of the revenue required to maintain and operate our transportation network. As future consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel declines, due to increased fleet efficiency, California will be challenged to sustain its $2.5 trillion economy. Continuing to depend on a consumption-based transportation model, while at the same time adopting policies to increase vehicle fuel efficiency and promote the reduction of vehicle miles traveled, puts into question the long-term viability of the gas tax as a sustainable revenue model.

Historically, transportation funding has been impacted by two main factors: inflation and vehicle fuel efficiency. Until this year, with the passage of the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1), the state gas tax had not been adjusted for inflation since 1994, which significantly reduced its purchasing power. Senate Bill 1 adjusted fuel rates for past inflation and includes future inflation adjustments: hence, solving the inflation issue and delaying the expected transportation funding shortage by a decade or more. However, the impact of improving vehicle fuel efficiency remains an issue, especially as new vehicles sold in the coming decades are expected to be much more fuel efficient.

The report claims, “Without Senate Bill 1’s inflation adjustments, the transportation funding shortfall would be quickly approaching. The new Senate Bill 1 revenues, as illustrated in Figure 1, stabilize the state’s short-term transportation infrastructure funding needs and provides time to explore alternatives to continued reliance on fuel taxes.”

How Transportation Funding Works

Currently, it costs approximately $8.5 billion annually to maintain California’s roads.

• Approximately 80% of highway and road repairs are funded by a tax on gasoline charged at the pump when you buy gas. The more gas you buy, the more you pay in gas taxes and the more you contribute to highway and road repairs.
• On average, Californians pay about $300 a year in state gas taxes.
• Various state fees also support transportation. Trucks pay weight fees and zero-emission vehicle owners pay $118 each year, and all vehicle owners pay a transportation improvement fee.
• Some counties also charge a local sales tax to further invest in road and transit needs or have tolls on bridges or certain highways.
• The public may also pass state bonds to invest in additional transportation needs.

What is Road Charge?

California relies on gas tax and other fuel tax revenues to fund its roadway maintenance and repairs. But as cars get more fuel efficient or use other energy sources, such as electricity and hydrogen, the gas tax will no longer fund the infrastructure California needs. California is researching a potential gas tax replacement that’s both sustainable and equitable: road charge. A road charge is a “user pays” system where all drivers pay to maintain the roads based on how much they drive, rather than how much gas they purchase. Under a road charge, all drivers share roadway maintenance and repair costs based on what they actually use. (https://dot.ca.gov/programs/road-charge)

• California could replace the gas tax with a mileage-based user fee charged to drivers who use the roads. The more you drive, the more you pay for highway and road repairs. The less you drive, the less you pay.
• Everyone would pay their fair share for road repairs based on how much they drive, not the kind of car they own.
• California is working to develop a road charge program that is fair, transparent, and sustainable so that it meets our road maintenance needs now and in the future.

Most States Pursuing Vehicle Miles Traveled Taxes

According to the Tax Foundation, most states are taking steps toward a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax. “Oregon was the first state to begin research into VMT taxes in 2001 and was the first to implement a program in 2015. Four states now have active programs for passenger vehicles and four other states have active programs targeting heavy commercial vehicles (Oregon has both), with pilot programs carried out in 16 states. Only Hawaii has a mandatory program, which requires EVs to participate by 2028 and all light vehicles by 2033.”

Calculator Compares Road Charge vs. State Fuel Tax Costs

The “Road Charge” vs. gas tax calculator for a sample cost comparison of paying the current gas tax of $0.579 per gallon as of July 1, 2023, versus a per mile road charge offers options of $0.02, $0.03 and $0.04. At two cents per mile the Total Monthly Road Charge would be less than the Total Monthly State Fuel Tax for a gas-powered vehicle. But at three cents per mile, the monthly cost of the Road Charge would be greater than the current fuel tax.

For a 2024 Chevrolet Equinox EV driven an average of 1,000 miles per month the Road Charge annual costs would be $240 at two cents, $360 at three cents and $480 at four cents per mile versus the current $118 annual fee. The calculator “Does not include any federal or local taxes” and shows, “Rates are hypothetical and would be set by the California Legislature.”

Participate in 2024 Road Charge Collection Pilot

The Road Charge policy idea is still being explored and developed. The public’s input and ideas can help inform what the best way might be to implement a program in California. Drivers are asked to participate in the 2024 Road Charge Collection Pilot and earn up to $400!

• Receive up to $400* in gift cards
• Participate for 6 months; Aug 2024 – Jan 2025
• Pay road charges each month
• Gas tax refunded end of pilot
• Take 2 surveys to tell us about your pilot experience

*Complete all required activities throughout the Pilot and earn up to $400: $100 distributed in September 2024 and up to $300 will be distributed in February 2025.

To learn more and participate in the pilot program visit https://caroadcharge.com/engage/contact-us-pilot/, call (916) 619-6283 toll-free or email info@caroadcharge.com.

Guadalupe Zavala caused 6-hour stand-off ending in his death while unarmed

CA DOJ “commends APD” for manner in which they handled situation

Son later sued City of Antioch

CA Attorney General issues “policy and practices recommendations”

By California Department of Justice

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1506 (AB 1506), today, Friday, May 24, 2024, released a report on Guadalupe Zavala’s death from an officer-involved shooting involving the Antioch Police Department in Antioch, California on December 10, 2021. The report is part of the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) ongoing efforts to provide transparency and accountability in law enforcement practices. The report provides a detailed analysis of the incident and outlines DOJ’s findings. After a thorough investigation, DOJ concluded that criminal charges were not appropriate in this case. However, DOJ recognizes the important lessons to be learned from this incident. As required by AB 1506, the Attorney General has issued specific policy and practice recommendations related to the incident. 

“Loss of life is always a tragedy,” said Attorney General Bonta. “AB 1506 is a critical transparency and accountability tool, and our hope for this report is to provide some understanding and aid in advancing towards a safer California for all. The California Department of Justice remains steadfast in our commitment to working together with all law enforcement partners to ensure an unbiased, transparent, and accountable legal system for every resident of California.”

On December 10, 2021, Antioch Police Department responded to multiple calls regarding a man who was barricaded in his home with a rifle after shooting at neighboring homes and vehicles. A standoff lasting more than six hours ensued, during which Mr. Zavala fired multiple rounds from various locations towards law enforcement personnel, vehicles, and nearby residences. De-escalation measures, communications from the crisis negotiations team, and attempts to coerce Mr. Zavala from his residence were unsuccessful. At one point, Mr. Zavala exited his front door carrying what appeared to be a “full AR-15 style rifle.” Two snipers with the Antioch Police Department each fired one round hitting Mr. Zavala, causing him to fall back. However, because Mr. Zavala was wearing body armor, he was able to regain his footing and moved back inside the residence. Later, a fire started in Mr. Zavala’s home, and he ran out and took cover in his backyard. When law enforcement knocked down the fence of Mr. Zavala’s yard with an armored vehicle, Mr. Zavala ran towards the armored vehicle and was fatally shot.

Zavala’s son, Diego Zavala, joined in a 2023 federal lawsuit against the City of Antioch and six Antioch Police officers. (See related articles here, here and here)

Under AB 1506, which requires DOJ to investigate all incidents of officer-involved shootings resulting in the death of an unarmed civilian in the state. DOJ conducted a thorough investigation into this incident and concluded that the evidence does not show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officers involved did not act in lawful self-defense or defense of others. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution of the officers. As such, no further action will be taken in this case.

CA DOJ “Commends APD” for How They Handled Situation

In addition, the report shows the California DOJ Police Practices Section conducted a supplemental review of the information and “PPS commends APD for the manner in which they handled this volatile, dangerous situation, coordinating with neighboring agencies, exploring less-lethal options, and rapidly deploying the SWAT and CNT teams to the incident to attempt to achieve a peaceful surrender.”

CA DOJ Recommendations

As part of its investigation, DOJ has identified several policy recommendations that it believes will help prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. These recommendations include:

COMMUNICATION

Antioch Police Department should ensure that officers are equipped with effective communications devices that can operate in the hilly areas covered by their department. Antioch Police Department can seek additional coverage or upgrades through their department-issued cell phone or radio carriers or, if that is impracticable or not feasible, examine whether there are other cell phone carriers or radio channels that would work in all areas they serve. 

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AGENCIES

Antioch Police Department should ensure that their officers can effectively and efficiently communicate with officers from other agencies in future incidents by setting up regional radio channel systems for interagency communication.

See CA DOJ Antioch Police Policy and Practice Recommendations.

Emails were sent early Friday afternoon to Acting Antioch Police Chief Brian Addington, Antioch Police Officers Association leaders and their attorney, Mike Rains for comment on the report, as well as City Attorney Thomas L. Smith, Addington and Rains with questions regarding the 2023 lawsuit that included Zavala’s son. The efforts were unsuccessful prior to publication time.

UPDATE: Rains responded early Friday evening saying, “That was good news from the DOJ. I think the findings were appropriate. The DOJ does a very good job, in my opinion, in these 1506 cases analyzing the facts and clearing the officers of any wrongdoing. I also see the PPS commends the department for de-escalation.”

About the lawsuit he said, “I don’t know on the civil side if the lawsuit is settled or not,” as Rains’ firm does not represent former officer Eric Rombough.

“We represented the officers in the 1506 case, including Duggar and Chang, who were the two primary officers who fired their weapons and were part of the DOJ investigation,” Rains added.

A copy of the complete CA Attorney General’s report can be found here.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.